Results 1  10
of
12
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 ..."
Pomset logic as a calculus of directed cographs
 DYNAMIC PERSPECTIVES IN LOGIC AND LINGUISTICS
, 1999
"... ..."
Proofs Without Syntax
 Annals of Mathematics
"... [M]athematicians care no more for logic than logicians for mathematics. Augustus de Morgan, 1868 Proofs are traditionally syntactic, inductively generated objects. This paper presents an abstract mathematical formulation of propositional calculus (propositional logic) in which proofs are combinatori ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
[M]athematicians care no more for logic than logicians for mathematics. Augustus de Morgan, 1868 Proofs are traditionally syntactic, inductively generated objects. This paper presents an abstract mathematical formulation of propositional calculus (propositional logic) in which proofs are combinatorial (graphtheoretic), rather than syntactic. It defines a combinatorial proof of a proposition φ as a graph homomorphism h: C → G(φ), where G(φ) is a graph associated with φ and C is a coloured graph. The main theorem is soundness and completeness: φ is true if and only if there exists a combinatorial proof h: C → G(φ). 1.
Resource logics and minimalist grammars
 Proceedings ESSLLI’99 workshop (Special issue Language and Computation
, 2002
"... This ESSLLI workshop is devoted to connecting the linguistic use of resource logics and categorial grammar to minimalist grammars and related generative grammars. Minimalist grammars are relatively recent, and although they stem from a long tradition of work in transformational grammar, they are lar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This ESSLLI workshop is devoted to connecting the linguistic use of resource logics and categorial grammar to minimalist grammars and related generative grammars. Minimalist grammars are relatively recent, and although they stem from a long tradition of work in transformational grammar, they are largely informal apart from a few research papers. The study of resource logics, on the other hand, is formal and stems naturally from a long logical tradition. So although there appear to be promising connections between these traditions, there is at this point a rather thin intersection between them. The papers in this workshop are consequently rather diverse, some addressing general similarities between the two traditions, and others concentrating on a thorough study of a particular point. Nevertheless they succeed in convincing us of the continuing interest of studying and developing the relationship between the minimalist program and resource logics. This introduction reviews some of the basic issues and prior literature. 1 The interest of a convergence What would be the interest of a convergence between resource logical investigations of
Towards Hilbert's 24th Problem: Combinatorial Proof Invariants
, 2006
"... Proofs Without Syntax [37] introduced polynomialtime 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 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proofs Without Syntax [37] introduced polynomialtime 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.
Handsome NonCommutative ProofNets: perfect matchings, seriesparallel orders and Hamiltonian circuits, Technical report, n o 5409
 INRIA
"... apport de recherche Handsome NonCommutative ProofNets: perfect matchings, seriesparallel orders and Hamiltonian circuits ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
apport de recherche Handsome NonCommutative ProofNets: perfect matchings, seriesparallel orders and Hamiltonian circuits
A LinearTime Algorithm for the Maximum MatchedPairedDomination Problem in Cographs
, 2009
"... Let G = (V, E) be a graph without isolated vertices. A matching in G is a set of independent edges in G. A perfect matching M in G is a matching such that every vertex of G is incident to an edge of M. A set S ⊆ V is a paireddominating set of G if every vertex in V − S is adjacent to some vertex in ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Let G = (V, E) be a graph without isolated vertices. A matching in G is a set of independent edges in G. A perfect matching M in G is a matching such that every vertex of G is incident to an edge of M. A set S ⊆ V is a paireddominating set of G if every vertex in V − S is adjacent to some vertex in S and if the subgraph G[S] induced by S contains at least one perfect matching. The paireddomination problem is to find a paireddominating set of G with minimum cardinality. In this paper, we introduce a generalization of the paireddomination problem, namely the maximum matchedpaireddomination problem. A set MPD ⊆ E is a matchedpaireddominating set of G if MPD is a perfect matching of G[S] induced by a paireddominating set S of G. Note that the paireddomination problem can be regard as finding a matchedpaireddominating set of G with minimum cardinality. Let R be a subset of V, MPD be a matchedpaireddominating set of G, and let V (MPD) denote the set of vertices being incident to edges of MPD. A maximum matchedpaireddominating set MMPD of G w.r.t. R is a matchedpaireddominating set such that V (MMPD) ∩ R  � V (MPD) ∩ R. An edge in MPD is called freepairededge if neither of its both vertices is in R. Given a graph G and a subset R of vertices of G, the maximum matchedpaireddomination problem is to find a maximum matchedpaireddominating set of G with the least freepairededges; note that, if R is empty, the stated problem coincides with the classical paireddomination problem. In this paper, we present a lineartime algorithm to solve the maximum matchedpaireddomination problem in cographs.