Results 1  10
of
30
CutElimination and a PermutationFree Sequent Calculus for Intuitionistic Logic
, 1998
"... We describe a sequent calculus, based on work of Herbelin, of which the cutfree derivations are in 11 correspondence with the normal natural deduction proofs of intuitionistic logic. We present a simple proof of Herbelin's strong cutelimination theorem for the calculus, using the recursive ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a sequent calculus, based on work of Herbelin, of which the cutfree derivations are in 11 correspondence with the normal natural deduction proofs of intuitionistic logic. We present a simple proof of Herbelin's strong cutelimination theorem for the calculus, using the recursive path ordering theorem of Dershowitz.
A Linear Spine Calculus
 Journal of Logic and Computation
, 2003
"... We present the spine calculus S ##&# as an efficient representation for the linear #calculus # ##&# which includes unrestricted functions (#), linear functions (#), additive pairing (&), and additive unit (#). S ##&# enhances the representation of Church's simply typed # ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present the spine calculus S ##&# as an efficient representation for the linear #calculus # ##&# which includes unrestricted functions (#), linear functions (#), additive pairing (&), and additive unit (#). S ##&# enhances the representation of Church's simply typed #calculus by enforcing extensionality and by incorporating linear constructs. This approach permits procedures such as unification to retain the efficient head access that characterizes firstorder term languages without the overhead of performing #conversions at run time. Applications lie in proof search, logic programming, and logical frameworks based on linear type theories. It is also related to foundational work on term assignment calculi for presentations of the sequent calculus. We define the spine calculus, give translations of # ##&# into S ##&# and viceversa, prove their soundness and completeness with respect to typing and reductions, and show that the typable fragment of the spine calculus is strongly normalizing and admits unique canonical, i.e. ##normal, forms.
Termination of permutative conversions in intuitionistic Gentzen calculi
, 1997
"... It is shown that permutative conversions terminate for the cutfree intuitionistic Gentzen (i.e. sequent) calculus; this proves a conjecture by Dyckhoff and Pinto. The main technical tool is a term notation for derivations in Gentzen calculi. These terms may be seen as terms with explicit substitut ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
It is shown that permutative conversions terminate for the cutfree intuitionistic Gentzen (i.e. sequent) calculus; this proves a conjecture by Dyckhoff and Pinto. The main technical tool is a term notation for derivations in Gentzen calculi. These terms may be seen as terms with explicit substitution, where the latter corresponds to the left introduction rules.
Lambda Terms for Natural Deduction, Sequent Calculus and Cut Elimination
"... It is wellknown 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 sequ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
It is wellknown 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 oneone 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 manyone correspondence mentioned above. Moreover, the second type assignment system has a `cutfree' 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.
Cut Rules and Explicit Substitutions
, 2000
"... this paper deals exclusively with intuitionistic logic (in fact, only the implicative fragment), we require succedents to be a single consequent formula. Natural deduction systems, which we choose to call Nsystems, are symbolic logics generally given via introduction and elimination rules for the l ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper deals exclusively with intuitionistic logic (in fact, only the implicative fragment), we require succedents to be a single consequent formula. Natural deduction systems, which we choose to call Nsystems, are symbolic logics generally given via introduction and elimination rules for the logical connectives which operate on the right, i.e., they manipulate the succedent formula. Examples are Gentzen's NJ and NK (Gentzen 1935). Logical deduction systems are given via leftintroduction and rightintroduction rules for the logical connectives. Although others have called these systems "sequent calculi", we call them Lsystems to avoid confusion with other systems given in sequent style. Examples are Gentzen's LK and LJ (Gentzen 1935). In this paper we are primarily interested in Lsystems. The advantage of Nsystems is that they seem closer to actual reasoning, while Lsystems on the other hand seem to have an easier proof theory. Lsystems are often extended with a "cut" rule as part of showing that for a given Lsystem and Nsystem, the derivations of each system can be encoded in the other. For example, NK proves the same as LK + cut (Gentzen 1935). Proof Normalization. A system is consistent when it is impossible to prove false, i.e., derive absurdity from zero assumptions. A system is analytic (has the analycity property) when there is an e#ective method to decompose any conclusion sequent into simpler premise sequents from which the conclusion can be obtained by some rule in the system such that the conclusion is derivable i# the premises are derivable (Maenpaa 1993). To achieve the goals of consistency and analycity, it has been customary to consider
Revisiting the correspondence between cutelimination and normalisation
 In Proceedings of ICALP’2000
, 2000
"... Abstract. Cutfree proofs in Herbelin’s sequent calculus are in 11 correspondence with normal natural deduction proofs. For this reason Herbelin’s sequent calculus has been considered a privileged middlepoint between Lsystems and natural deduction. However, this bijection does not extend to pro ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Cutfree proofs in Herbelin’s sequent calculus are in 11 correspondence with normal natural deduction proofs. For this reason Herbelin’s sequent calculus has been considered a privileged middlepoint between Lsystems and natural deduction. However, this bijection does not extend to proofs containing cuts and Herbelin observed that his cutelimination procedure is not isomorphic to βreduction. In this paper we equip Herbelin’s system with rewrite rules which, at the same time: (1) complete in a sense the cut elimination procedure firstly proposed by Herbelin; and (2) perform the intuitionistic “fragment ” of the tqprotocol a cutelimination procedure for classical logic defined by Danos, Joinet and Schellinx. Moreover we identify the subcalculus of our system which is isomorphic to natural deduction, the isomorphism being with respect not only to proofs but also to normalisation. Our results show, for the implicational fragment of intuitionistic logic, how to embed natural deduction in the much wider world of sequent calculus and what a particular cutelimination procedure normalisation is. 1
Completing Herbelin’s programme
"... In 1994 Herbelin started and partially achieved the programme of showing that, for intuitionistic implicational logic, there is a CurryHoward interpretation of sequent calculus into a variant of the λcalculus, specifically a variant which manipulates formally “applicative contexts” and inverts t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In 1994 Herbelin started and partially achieved the programme of showing that, for intuitionistic implicational logic, there is a CurryHoward interpretation of sequent calculus into a variant of the λcalculus, specifically a variant which manipulates formally “applicative contexts” and inverts the associativity of “applicative terms”. Herbelin worked with a fragment of sequent calculus with constraints on left introduction. In this paper we complete Herbelin’s programme for full sequent calculus, that is, sequent calculus without the mentioned constraints, but where permutative conversions necessarily show up. This requires the introduction of a lambdalike calculus for full sequent calculus and an extension of natural deduction that gives meaning to “applicative contexts” and “applicative terms”. Such extension is a calculus with modus ponens and primitive substitution that refines von Plato’s natural deduction; it is also a “coercion calculus”, in the sense of Cervesato and Pfenning. The prooftheoretical outcome is noteworthy: the puzzling relationship between cut and substitution is settled; and cutelimination in sequent calculus is proven isomorphic to normalisation in the proposed natural deduction system. The isomorphism is the mapping that inverts the associativity of applicative terms.
Proof Search in Constructive Logics
 In Sets and proofs
, 1998
"... We present an overview of some sequent calculi organised not for "theoremproving" but for proof search, where the proofs themselves (and the avoidance of known proofs on backtracking) are objects of interest. The main calculus discussed is that of Herbelin [1994] for intuitionistic lo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present an overview of some sequent calculi organised not for "theoremproving" but for proof search, where the proofs themselves (and the avoidance of known proofs on backtracking) are objects of interest. The main calculus discussed is that of Herbelin [1994] for intuitionistic logic, which extends methods used in hereditary Harrop logic programming; we give a brief discussion of some similar calculi for other logics. We also point to some related work on permutations in intuitionistic Gentzen sequent calculi that clarifies the relationship between such calculi and natural deduction. 1 Introduction It is widely held that ordinary logic programming is based on classical logic, with a Tarskistyle semantics (answering questions "What judgments are provable?") rather than a Heytingstyle semantics (answering questions like "What are the proofs, if any, of each judgment?"). If one adopts the latter style (equivalently, the BHK interpretation: see [35] for details) by regardi...
GraphBased Proof Counting and Enumeration with Applications for Program Fragment Synthesis
 in &quot;International Symposium on Logicbased Program Synthesis and Transformation 2004 (LOPSTR 2004)&quot;, S. ETALLE (editor)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2004
"... Abstract. For use in earlier approaches to automated module interface adaptation, we seek a restricted form of program synthesis. Given some typing assumptions and a desired result type, we wish to automatically build a number of program fragments of this chosen typing, using functions and values av ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. For use in earlier approaches to automated module interface adaptation, we seek a restricted form of program synthesis. Given some typing assumptions and a desired result type, we wish to automatically build a number of program fragments of this chosen typing, using functions and values available in the given typing environment. We call this problem term enumeration. To solve the problem, we use the CurryHoward correspondence (propositionsastypes, proofsasprograms) to transform it into a proof enumeration problem for an intuitionistic logic calculus. We formally study proof enumeration and counting in this calculus. We prove that proof counting is solvable and give an algorithm to solve it. This in turn yields a proof enumeration algorithm. 1