The -calculus is considered an useful mathematical tool in the study of programming languages, since programs can be identified with -terms. However, if one goes further and uses fij-conversion to prove equivalence of programs, then a gross simplification 1 is introduced, that may jeopardise the applicability of theoretical results to real situations. In this paper we introduce a new calculus based on a categorical semantics for computations. This calculus provides a correct basis for proving equivalence of programs, independent from any specific computational model. 1 Introduction This paper is about logics for reasoning about programs, in particular for proving equivalence of programs. Following a consolidated tradition in theoretical computer science we identify programs with the closed -terms, possibly containing extra constants, corresponding to some features of the programming language under consideration. There are three approaches to proving equivalence of programs: ffl T...

not be interpreted as representing the o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of NSF or the U.S. Government. This thesis describes the design of a meta-logical framework that supports the representation and veri cation of deductive systems, its implementation as an automated theorem prover, and experimental results related to the areas of programming languages, type theory, and logics. Design: The meta-logical framework extends the logical framework LF [HHP93] by a meta-logic M + 2. This design is novel and unique since it allows higher-order encodings of deductive systems and induction principles to coexist. On the one hand, higher-order representation techniques lead to concise and direct encodings of programming languages and logic calculi. Inductive de nitions on the other hand allow the formalization of properties about deductive systems, such as the proof that an operational semantics preserves types or the proof that a logic is is a proof calculus whose proof terms are recursive functions that may be consistent.M +

The method of analytic tableaux is a direct descendant of Gentzen's cutfree sequent calculus and is regarded as a paradigm of the notion of analytic deduction in classical logic. However, cut-free systems are anomalous from the proof-theoretical, the semantical and the computational point of view. Firstly, they cannot represent the use of auxiliary lemmas in proofs. Secondly, they cannot express the bivalence of classical logic. Thirdly, they are extremely inefficient, as is emphasized by the "computational scandal" that such systems cannot polynomially simulate the truth-tables. None of these anomalies occurs if the cut rule is allowed. This raises the problem of formulating a proof system which incorporates a cut rule and yet can provide a suitable model of classical analytic deduction. For this purpose we present an alternative refutation system for classical logic, that we call KE. This system, though being "close" to Smullyan's tableau method, is not cut-free but includes a class...

The use of Herbrand functions (more popularly known as Skolemization) plays an important role in classical theorem proving and logic programming. We define a notion of Herbrand functions for the full intuitionistic predicate calculus. The definition is based on the view that the proof-theoretic role of Herbrand functions (to replace universal quantifiers), and of unification (to find instances corresponding to existential quantifiers), is to ensure that the eigenvariable conditions on a sequent proof are respected. The propositional impermutabilities that arise in the intuitionistic but not the classical sequent calculus motivate a generalization of the classical notion of Herbrand functions. Proof search using generalized Herbrand functions also provides a framework for generalizing logic programming to subsets of intuitionistic logic that are larger than Horn clauses. The search procedure described here has been implemented and observed to work effectively in practice. The generaliza...

This paper presents a principle for using locations in logical expressions to guide the process of building proofs. Using a sequentstyle presentation of theorem provers, we annotate the inference rules to specify an algorithm that associates the construction of a proof tree to a location within a goal sequent. This principle provides a natural and effective use of the mouse in the user-interface of computer proof assistants. The implementation of the algorithm in a variety of theorem provers is discussed.

Abstract not found

this paper we shall consider multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL), i.e. the fragment which has multiplicative conjunction or tensor,\Omega , linear implication, \Gammaffi, and the logical operator "exponential", !. We recall the rules for MELL in a sequent calculus system in Fig. 1. We use capital Greek letters \Gamma; \Delta for sequences of formulae and A; B for single formulae. The Exchange rule simply allows the permutation of assumptions. The `! rules' have been given names by other authors. ! L\Gamma1 is called Weakening , ! L\Gamma2 Contraction, ! L\Gamma3 Dereliction and (! R ) Promotion

We propose a new format for writing proofs, which we call structured calculational proof. The format is similar to the calculational style of proof already familiar to many computer scientists, but extends it by allowing large proofs to be hierarchically decomposed into smaller ones. In fact, structured calculational proof can be seen as an alternative presentation of natural deduction. Natural deduction is a well established style of reasoning which uses hierarchical decomposition to great effect, but which is traditionally expressed in a notation that is inconvenient for writing calculational proofs. The hierarchical nature of structured calculational proofs can be used for proof browsing. We comment on how browsing can increase the value of a proof, and discuss the possibilities offered by electronic publishing for the presentation and dissemination of papers containing browsable proofs. Note: This paper is also available as Australian National University Joint Computer Science Tec...

This paper compares two different styles of reasoning with inductively defined predicates, each style being encapsulated by a corresponding sequent calculus proof system. The first system supports traditional proof by induction, with induction rules formulated as sequent rules for introducing inductively defined predicates on the left of sequents. We show this system to be cut-free complete with respect to a natural class of Henkin models; the eliminability of cut follows as a corollary. The second system uses infinite (non-well-founded) proofs to represent arguments by infinite descent. In this system, the left rules for inductively defined predicates are simple case-split rules, and an infinitary, global condition on proof trees is required to ensure soundness. We show this system to be cut-free complete with respect to standard models, and again infer the eliminability of cut. The second infinitary system is unsuitable for formal reasoning. However, it has a natural restriction to proofs given by regular trees, i.e. to those proofs representable by finite graphs. This restricted “cyclic ” system subsumes the first system for proof by induction. We conjecture that the two systems are in fact equivalent, i.e., that proof by induction is equivalent to regular proof by infinite descent.

Natural deduction is the type of logic most familiar to current philosophers, and indeed is all that many modern philosophers know about logic. Yet natural deduction is a fairly recent innovation in logic, dating from Gentzen and Jaskowski in 1934. This article traces the development of natural deduction from the view that these founders embraced to the widespread acceptance of the method in the 1960s. I focus especially on the different choices made by writers of elementary textbooks -- the standard conduits of the method to a generation of philosophers -- with an eye to determining what the `essential characteristics’ of natural deduction are.