It is well-known that weakening and contraction cause naïve categorical models of the classical sequent calculus to collapse to Boolean lattices. Starting from a convenient formulation of the well-known categorical semantics of linear classical sequent proofs, we give models of weakening and contraction that do not collapse. Cut-reduction is interpreted by a partial order between morphisms. Our models make no commitment to any translation of classical logic into intuitionistic logic and distinguish non-deterministic choices of cut-elimination. We show soundness and completeness via initial models built from proof nets, and describe models built from sets and relations.

X is an untyped continuation-style formal language with a typed subset which provides a Curry-Howard isomorphism for a sequent calculus for implicative classical logic. X can also be viewed as a language for describing nets by composition of basic components connected by wires. These features make X an expressive platform on which algebraic objects and many different (applicative) programming paradigms can be mapped. In this paper we will present the syntax and reduction rules for X and in order to demonstrate the expressive power of X, we will show how elaborate calculi can be embedded, like the λ-calculus, Bloo and Rose’s calculus of explicit substitutions λx, Parigot’s λµ and Curien and Herbelin’s λµ ˜µ.

It is well-known that there is an isomorphism between natural deduction derivations and typed lambda terms. Moreover normalising these terms corresponds to eliminating cuts in the equivalent sequent calculus derivations. Several papers have been written on this topic. The correspondence between sequent calculus derivations and natural deduction derivations is, however, not a one-one map, which causes some syntactic technicalities. The correspondence is best explained by two extensionally equivalent type assignment systems for untyped lambda terms, one corresponding to natural deduction (N) and the other to sequent calculus (L). These two systems constitute different grammars for generating the same (type assignment relation for untyped) lambda terms. The second grammar is ambiguous, but the first one is not. This fact explains the many-one correspondence mentioned above. Moreover, the second type assignment system has a `cut-free' fragment (L cf ). This fragment generates exactly the typeable lambda terms in normal form. The cut elimination theorem becomes a simple consequence of the fact that typed lambda terms posses a normal form.

Abstract. We study the π-calculus, enriched with pairing and non-blocking input, and define a notion of type assignment that uses the type constructor →. We encode the circuits of the calculus X into this variant of π, and show that all reduction (cut-elimination) and assignable types are preserved. Since X enjoys the Curry-Howard isomorphism for Gentzen’s calculus LK, this implies that all proofs in LK have a representation in π.

Powerful proof techniques, such as logical relation arguments, have been developed for establishing the strong normalisation property of term-rewriting systems. The first author used such a logical relation argument to establish strong normalising for a cut-elimination procedure in classical logic. He presented a rather complicated, but informal, proof establishing this property. The difficulties in this proof arise from a quite subtle substitution operation. We have formalised this proof in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL using the Nominal Datatype Package, closely following the first authors PhD. In the process, we identified and resolved a gap in one central lemma and a number of smaller problems in others. We also needed to make one informal definition rigorous. We thus show that the original proof is indeed a proof and that present automated proving technology is adequate for formalising such difficult proofs.

Abstract. In this paper we introduce a cut-elimination procedure for classical logic, which is both strongly normalising and consisting of local proof transformations. Traditional cut-elimination procedures, including the one by Gentzen, are formulated so that they only rewrite neighbouring inference rules; that is they use local proof transformations. Unfortunately, such local proof transformation, if defined naïvely, break the strong normalisation property. Inspired by work of Bloo and Geuvers concerning the λx-calculus, we shall show that a simple trick allows us to preserve this property in our cut-elimination procedure. We shall establish this property using the recursive path ordering by Dershowitz.

Abstract not found

This paper shows how a symmetric and non-deterministic cut elimination procedure for a classical sequent calculus can be faithfully simulated using a non-deterministic choice operator to combine different `double-negation' translations of each cut. The resulting interpretation of classical proofs in a -calculus with non-deterministic choice leads to a simple proof of termination for cut elimination.

Proofs Without Syntax [37] introduced polynomial-time checkable combinatorial proofs for classical propositional logic. This sequel approaches Hilbert’s 24 th Problem with combinatorial proofs as abstract invariants for sequent calculus proofs, analogous to homotopy groups as abstract invariants for topological spaces. The paper lifts a simple, strongly normalising cut elimination from combinatorial proofs to sequent calculus, factorising away the mechanical commutations of structural rules which litter traditional syntactic cut elimination. Sequent calculus fails to be surjective onto combinatorial proofs: the paper extracts a semantically motivated closure of sequent calculus from which there is a surjection, pointing towards an abstract combinatorial refinement of Herbrand’s theorem.

Abstract. This paper revisits the results of Barendregt and Ghilezan [3] and generalizes them for classical logic. Instead of λ-calculus, we use here λµ-calculus as the basic term calculus. We consider two extensionally equivalent type assignment systems for λµ-calculus, one corresponding to classical natural deduction, and the other to classical sequent calculus. Their relations and normalisation properties are investigated. As a consequence a short proof of Cut elimination theorem is obtained.