Results 1  10
of
55
A New Deconstructive Logic: Linear Logic
, 1995
"... The main concern of this paper is the design of a noetherian and confluent normalization for LK 2 (that is, classical second order predicate logic presented as a sequent calculus). The method we present is powerful: since it allows us to recover as fragments formalisms as seemingly different a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 102 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The main concern of this paper is the design of a noetherian and confluent normalization for LK 2 (that is, classical second order predicate logic presented as a sequent calculus). The method we present is powerful: since it allows us to recover as fragments formalisms as seemingly different as Girard's LC and Parigot's , FD ([9, 11, 27, 31]), delineates other viable systems as well, and gives means to extend the Krivine/Leivant paradigm of `programmingwithproofs' ([22, 23]) to classical logic; it is painless: since we reduce strong normalization and confluence to the same properties for linear logic (for nonadditive proof nets, to be precise) using appropriate embeddings (socalled decorations); it is unifying: it organizes known solutions in a simple pattern that makes apparent the how and why of their making. A comparison of our method to that of embedding LK into LJ (intuitionistic sequent calculus) brings to the fore the latter's defects for these `deconstructi...
Structural Cut Elimination  I. Intuitionistic and Classical Logic
 Information and Computation
, 2000
"... this paper we present new proofs of cut elimination for intuitionistic and classical sequent calculi and give their representations in the logical framework LF [HHP93] as implemented in the Elf system [Pfe91]. Multisets are avoided altogether in these proofs, and termination measures are replaced b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 52 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we present new proofs of cut elimination for intuitionistic and classical sequent calculi and give their representations in the logical framework LF [HHP93] as implemented in the Elf system [Pfe91]. Multisets are avoided altogether in these proofs, and termination measures are replaced by three nested structural inductions. Parameters are treated as variables bound in derivations, thus naturally capturing occurrence conditions. A starting point for the proofs is Kleene's sequent system G 3 [Kle52], which we derive systematically from the point of view that a sequent calculus should be a calculus of proof search for natural deductions. It can easily be related to Gentzen's original and other sequent calculi. We augment G 3 with proof terms that are stable under weakening. These proof terms enable the structural induction and furthermore form the basis of the representation of the proof in LF. The most closely related work on cut elimination is MartinLo# f 's proof of admissibility [ML68]. In MartinLo# f 's system the cut rule incorporates aspects of both weakening and contraction which enables a structural induction argument closely related to ours. However, without the introduction of proof terms, the implicit weakening in the cut rule makes it difficult to implement this proof directly. Herbelin [Her95] restates this proof and proceeds by assigning proof terms only to restricted sequent calculi LJT and LKT which correspond more immediately to
The Semantics and Proof Theory of Linear Logic
 THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 1988
"... Linear logic is a new logic which was recently developed by Girard in order to provide a logical basis for the study of parallelism. It is described and investigated in [Gi]. Girard's presentation of his logic is not so standard. In this paper we shall provide more standard proof systems and sem ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Linear logic is a new logic which was recently developed by Girard in order to provide a logical basis for the study of parallelism. It is described and investigated in [Gi]. Girard's presentation of his logic is not so standard. In this paper we shall provide more standard proof systems and semantics. We shall also extend part of Girard's results by investigating the consequence relations associated with Linear Logic and by proving corresponding strong completeness theorems. Finally, we shall investigate the relation between Linear Logic and previously known systems, especially Relevance logics.
Cutelimination and redundancyelimination by resolution
 Journal of Symbolic Computation
, 2000
"... A new cutelimination method for Gentzen’s LK is defined. First cutelimination is generalized to the problem of redundancyelimination. Then the elimination of redundancy in LKproofs is performed by a resolution method in the following way: A set of clauses C is assigned to an LKproof ψ and it is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A new cutelimination method for Gentzen’s LK is defined. First cutelimination is generalized to the problem of redundancyelimination. Then the elimination of redundancy in LKproofs is performed by a resolution method in the following way: A set of clauses C is assigned to an LKproof ψ and it is shown that C is always unsatisfiable. A resolution refutation of C then serves as a skeleton of an LKproof ψ ′ with atomic cuts; ψ ′ can be constructed from the resolution proof and ψ by a projection method. In the last step the atomic cuts are eliminated and a cutfree proof is obtained. The complexity of the method is analyzed and it is shown that a nonelementary speedup over Gentzen’s method can be achieved. Finally an application to automated deduction is presented: it is demonstrated how informal proofs (containing pseudocuts) can be transformed into formal ones by the method of redundancyelimination; moreover, the method can even be used to transform incorrect proofs into correct ones. 1.
Prooftheoretic investigations on Kruskal's theorem
 Ann. Pure Appl. Logic
, 1993
"... In this paper we calibrate the exact prooftheoretic strength of Kruskal's theorem, thereby giving, in some sense, the most elementary proof of Kruskal's theorem. Furthermore, these investigations give rise to ordinal analyses of restricted bar induction. Introduction S.G. Simpson in his article [ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we calibrate the exact prooftheoretic strength of Kruskal's theorem, thereby giving, in some sense, the most elementary proof of Kruskal's theorem. Furthermore, these investigations give rise to ordinal analyses of restricted bar induction. Introduction S.G. Simpson in his article [10], "Nonprovability of certain combinatorial properties of finite trees", presents prooftheoretic results, due to H. Friedman, about embeddability properties of finite trees. It is shown there that Kruskal's theorem is not provable in ATR 0 . An exact description of the prooftheoretic strength of Kruskal's theorem is not given. On the assumption that there is a bad infinite sequence of trees, the usual proof of Kruskal's theorem utilizes the existence of a minimal bad sequence of trees, thereby employing some form of \Pi 1 1 comprehension. So the question arises whether a more constructive proof can be given. The need for a more elementary proof of Kruskal's theorem is especially felt ...
On an Intuitionistic Modal Logic
 Studia Logica
, 2001
"... . In this paper we consider an intuitionistic variant of the modal logic S4 (which we call IS4). The novelty of this paper is that we place particular importance on the natural deduction formulation of IS4our formulation has several important metatheoretic properties. In addition, we study models ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. In this paper we consider an intuitionistic variant of the modal logic S4 (which we call IS4). The novelty of this paper is that we place particular importance on the natural deduction formulation of IS4our formulation has several important metatheoretic properties. In addition, we study models of IS4, not in the framework of Kripke semantics, but in the more general framework of category theory. This allows not only a more abstract definition of a whole class of models but also a means of modelling proofs as well as provability. 1. Introduction Modal logics are traditionally extensions of classical logic with new operators, or modalities, whose operation is intensional. Modal logics are most commonly justified by the provision of an intuitive semantics based upon `possible worlds', an idea originally due to Kripke. Kripke also provided a possible worlds semantics for intuitionistic logic, and so it is natural to consider intuitionistic logic extended with intensional modalities...
Higher Order Logic
 In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming
, 1994
"... Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Definin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Defining data types : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 2.4 Describing processes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 8 2.5 Expressing convergence using second order validity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9 2.6 Truth definitions: the analytical hierarchy : : : : : : : : 10 2.7 Inductive definitions : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13 3 Canonical semantics of higher order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : 15 3.1 Tarskian semantics of second order logic : : : : : : : : : 15 3.2 Function and re
On the NoCounterexample Interpretation
 J. SYMBOLIC LOGIC
, 1997
"... In [15],[16] Kreisel introduced the nocounterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated "substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of firstorder Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In [15],[16] Kreisel introduced the nocounterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated "substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of firstorder Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functionals \Phi A of order type ! " 0 which realize the Herbrand normal form A of A. Subsequently more
ON THE NUMBER OF STEPS IN PROOFS
, 1989
"... In this paper we prove some results about the complexity of proofs. We consider proofs in Hilbertstyle formal systems such as in [17J. Thus a proof is a sequence of formulas satisfying certain conditions. We caD view the formulas as being strings of symbols; hence the whole proof is a string too. W ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we prove some results about the complexity of proofs. We consider proofs in Hilbertstyle formal systems such as in [17J. Thus a proof is a sequence of formulas satisfying certain conditions. We caD view the formulas as being strings of symbols; hence the whole proof is a string too. We consider the following measures of complexity of proofs: length ( = the number of symbols in the proof), depth ( = the maximal depth of a formula in the proof) and number o! steps ( = the number of formulas in the proof). For a particular formaI system and a given formula A we consider the shortest length of a proof of A, the minimal depth ofa proof of A and the minimal number of steps in a proof of A. The main results are the following: (1) a bound on the depth in terms of the number of steps: Theorem 2.2, (2) a bound on the depth in terms of the length: Theorem 2.3, (3) a bound on the length in terms of the number of steps for restricted systems: Theorem 3.1. These results are applied to obtain several corollaries. In particular we show: (1) a bound on the number of steps in a cutfree proof, (2) some speedup results, (3) bounds on the number of steps in proofs of ParisHarrington sentences. Some paper