Results 1  10
of
15
On the Proof Complexity of Deep Inference
, 2000
"... We obtain two results about the proof complexity of deep inference: 1) deepinference proof systems are as powerful as Frege ones, even when both are extended with the Tseitin extension rule or with the substitution rule; 2) there are analytic deepinference proof systems that exhibit an exponential ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We obtain two results about the proof complexity of deep inference: 1) deepinference proof systems are as powerful as Frege ones, even when both are extended with the Tseitin extension rule or with the substitution rule; 2) there are analytic deepinference proof systems that exhibit an exponential speedup over analytic Gentzen proof systems that they polynomially simulate.
From proof nets to the free * autonomous category
 Logical Methods in Computer Science, 2(4:3):1–44, 2006. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0605054. [McK05] Richard McKinley. Classical categories and deep inference. In Structures and Deduction 2005 (Satellite Workshop of ICALP’05
, 2005
"... Vol. 2 (4:3) 2006, pp. 1–44 www.lmcsonline.org ..."
L.: Constructing free Boolean categories
, 2005
"... By Boolean category we mean something which is to a Boolean algebra what a category is to a poset. We propose an axiomatic system for Boolean categories, which is different in several respects from the ones proposed recently. In particular everything is done from the start in a *autonomous category ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
By Boolean category we mean something which is to a Boolean algebra what a category is to a poset. We propose an axiomatic system for Boolean categories, which is different in several respects from the ones proposed recently. In particular everything is done from the start in a *autonomous category and not in a weakly distributive one, which simplifies issues like the Mix rule. An important axiom, which is introduced later, is a “graphical ” condition, which is closely related to denotational semantics and the Geometry of Interaction. Then we show that a previously
On the axiomatisation of boolean categories with and without medial
 THEORY APPL. CATEG
, 2007
"... ..."
A system of interaction and structure IV: The exponentials
 IN THE SECOND ROUND OF REVISION FOR MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 2007
"... We study some normalisation properties of the deepinference proof system NEL, which can be seen both as 1) an extension of multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) by a certain noncommutative selfdual logical operator; and 2) an extension of system BV by the exponentials of linear logic. T ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study some normalisation properties of the deepinference proof system NEL, which can be seen both as 1) an extension of multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) by a certain noncommutative selfdual logical operator; and 2) an extension of system BV by the exponentials of linear logic. The interest of NEL resides in: 1) its being Turing complete, while the same for MELL is not known, and is widely conjectured not to be the case; 2) its inclusion of a selfdual, noncommutative logical operator that, despite its simplicity, cannot be axiomatised in any analytic sequent calculus system; 3) its ability to model the sequential composition of processes. We present several decomposition results for NEL and, as a consequence of those and via a splitting theorem, cut elimination. We use, for the first time, an induction measure based on flow graphs associated to the exponentials, which captures their rather complex behaviour in the normalisation process. The results are presented in the calculus of structures, which is the first, developed formalism in deep inference.
Breaking Paths in Atomic Flows for Classic Logic
, 2010
"... This work belongs to a wider effort aimed at eliminating syntactic bureaucracy from proof systems. In this paper, we present a novel cut elimination procedure for classical propositional logic. It is based on the recently introduced away from much of the typical bureaucracy of proofs. We make cruci ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This work belongs to a wider effort aimed at eliminating syntactic bureaucracy from proof systems. In this paper, we present a novel cut elimination procedure for classical propositional logic. It is based on the recently introduced away from much of the typical bureaucracy of proofs. We make crucial use of the path breaker, an atomicflow construction that avoids some nasty termination problems, and that can be used in any proof system with sufficient symmetry. This paper contains an original 2dimensionaldiagram exposition of atomic flows, which helps us to connect atomic flows with other known formalisms.
A system of interaction and structure V: The exponentials and splitting
, 2009
"... System NEL is the mixed commutative/noncommutative linear logic BV augmented with linear logic’s exponentials, or, equivalently, it is MELL augmented with the noncommutative selfdual connective seq. System NEL is Turingcomplete, it is able to directly express process algebra sequential compositio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
System NEL is the mixed commutative/noncommutative linear logic BV augmented with linear logic’s exponentials, or, equivalently, it is MELL augmented with the noncommutative selfdual connective seq. System NEL is Turingcomplete, it is able to directly express process algebra sequential composition and it faithfully models causal quantum evolution. In this paper, we show cut elimination for NEL, based on a property that we call splitting. NEL is presented in the calculus of structures, which is a deepinference formalism, because no Gentzen formalism can express it analytically. The splitting theorem shows how and to what extent we can recover a sequentlike structure in NEL proofs. Together with the decomposition theorem, proved in the previous paper of the series, this immediately leads to a cutelimination theorem for NEL. 1
What is the Problem with Proof Nets for Classical Logic?
"... Abstract. This paper is an informal (and nonexhaustive) overview over some existing notions of proof nets for classical logic, and gives some hints why they might be considered to be unsatisfactory. 1 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. This paper is an informal (and nonexhaustive) overview over some existing notions of proof nets for classical logic, and gives some hints why they might be considered to be unsatisfactory. 1
On Linear Logic Planning and Concurrency
"... We present an approach to linear logic planning where an explicit correspondence between partial order plans and multiplicative exponential linear logic proofs is established. This is performed by extracting partial order plans from sound and complete encodings of planning problems in multiplicativ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present an approach to linear logic planning where an explicit correspondence between partial order plans and multiplicative exponential linear logic proofs is established. This is performed by extracting partial order plans from sound and complete encodings of planning problems in multiplicative exponential linear logic in a way that exhibits a noninterleaving behavioral concurrency semantics. Relying on this fact, we argue that this work is a crucial step for establishing a common language for concurrency and planning that will allow to carry techniques and methods between these two fields.
Proof Nets for Intuitionistic Logic
 SAARBRÜCKEN, GERMANY
, 2006
"... Until the beginning of the 20th century, there was no way to reason formally about proofs. In particular, the question of proof equivalence had never been explored. When Hilbert asked in 1920 for an answer to this very question in his famous program, people started looking for proof formalizations.
..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Until the beginning of the 20th century, there was no way to reason formally about proofs. In particular, the question of proof equivalence had never been explored. When Hilbert asked in 1920 for an answer to this very question in his famous program, people started looking for proof formalizations.
Natural deduction and sequent calculi, which were invented by Gentzen in 1935, quickly became two of the main tools for the study of proofs. Gentzen’s Hauptsatz on normal forms for his sequent calculi, and later on Prawitz’ analog theorem for natural deduction, put forth a first notion of equivalent proofs in intuitionistic and classical logic.
However, natural deduction only works well for intuitionistic logic. This is why Girard invented proof nets in 1986 as an analog to natural deduction for (the multiplicative fragment of) linear logic. Their universal structure made proof nets also interesting for other logics. Proof nets have the great advantage that they eliminate most of the bureaucracy involved in deductive systems and so are probably closer to the essence of a proof. There has recently been an increasing interest in the development of proof nets for various kinds of logics. In 2005 for example, Lamarche and Straßburger were able to express sequent proofs in classical logic as proof nets.
In this thesis, I will, starting from proof nets for classical logic, turn the focus back on intuitionistic logic and propose proof nets that are suited as an extension of natural deduction. I will examine these nets and characterize those corresponding to natural deduction proofs. Additionally, I provide a cut elimination procedure for the new proof nets and prove termination and confluence for this reduction system, thus effectively a new notion of the equivalence of intuitionistic proofs.