Results 1  10
of
129
Explicit Provability And Constructive Semantics
 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
, 2001
"... In 1933 G odel introduced a calculus of provability (also known as modal logic S4) and left open the question of its exact intended semantics. In this paper we give a solution to this problem. We find the logic LP of propositions and proofs and show that G odel's provability calculus is nothing b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 114 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In 1933 G odel introduced a calculus of provability (also known as modal logic S4) and left open the question of its exact intended semantics. In this paper we give a solution to this problem. We find the logic LP of propositions and proofs and show that G odel's provability calculus is nothing but the forgetful projection of LP. This also achieves G odel's objective of defining intuitionistic propositional logic Int via classical proofs and provides a BrouwerHeytingKolmogorov style provability semantics for Int which resisted formalization since the early 1930s. LP may be regarded as a unified underlying structure for intuitionistic, modal logics, typed combinatory logic and #calculus.
Formalizing Context (Expanded Notes)
, 1995
"... this article was going through many versions as the ideas developed, and the mutual influences cannot be specified. This work was partly supported by DARPA contract NAG2703 and ARPA/ONR grant N000149410775 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 103 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this article was going through many versions as the ideas developed, and the mutual influences cannot be specified. This work was partly supported by DARPA contract NAG2703 and ARPA/ONR grant N000149410775
Focusing and Polarization in Linear, Intuitionistic, and Classical Logics
, 2009
"... A focused proof system provides a normal form to cutfree proofs in which the application of invertible and noninvertible inference rules is structured. Within linear logic, the focused proof system of Andreoli provides an elegant and comprehensive normal form for cutfree proofs. Within intuitioni ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A focused proof system provides a normal form to cutfree proofs in which the application of invertible and noninvertible inference rules is structured. Within linear logic, the focused proof system of Andreoli provides an elegant and comprehensive normal form for cutfree proofs. Within intuitionistic and classical logics, there are various different proof systems in the literature that exhibit focusing behavior. These focused proof systems have been applied to both the proof search and the proof normalization approaches to computation. We present a new, focused proof system for intuitionistic logic, called LJF, and show how other intuitionistic proof systems can be mapped into the new system by inserting logical connectives that prematurely stop focusing. We also use LJF to design a focused proof system LKF for classical logic. Our approach to the design and analysis of these systems is based on the completeness of focusing in linear logic and on the notion of polarity that appears in Girard’s LC and LU proof systems.
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 path ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (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.
The Logic of Justification
 Cornell University
, 2008
"... We describe a general logical framework, Justification Logic, for reasoning about epistemic justification. Justification Logic is based on classical propositional logic augmented by justification assertions t:F that read t is a justification for F. Justification Logic absorbs basic principles origin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a general logical framework, Justification Logic, for reasoning about epistemic justification. Justification Logic is based on classical propositional logic augmented by justification assertions t:F that read t is a justification for F. Justification Logic absorbs basic principles originating from both mainstream epistemology and the mathematical theory of proofs. It contributes to the studies of the wellknown Justified True Belief vs. Knowledge problem. We state a general Correspondence Theorem showing that behind each epistemic modal logic, there is a robust system of justifications. This renders a new, evidencebased foundation for epistemic logic. As a case study, we offer a resolution of the GoldmanKripke ‘Red Barn ’ paradox and analyze Russell’s ‘prime minister example ’ in Justification Logic. Furthermore, we formalize the wellknown Gettier example and reveal hidden assumptions and redundancies in Gettier’s reasoning. 1
Provability logic
 Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed
, 2004
"... We describe a general logical framework, Justification Logic, for reasoning about epistemic justification. Justification Logic is based on classical propositional logic augmented by justification assertions t:F that read t is a justification for F. Justification Logic absorbs basic principles origin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a general logical framework, Justification Logic, for reasoning about epistemic justification. Justification Logic is based on classical propositional logic augmented by justification assertions t:F that read t is a justification for F. Justification Logic absorbs basic principles originating from both mainstream epistemology and the mathematical theory of proofs. It contributes to the studies of the wellknown Justified True Belief vs. Knowledge problem. As a case study, we formalize Gettier examples in Justification Logic and reveal hidden assumptions and redundancies in Gettier reasoning. We state a general Correspondence Theorem showing that behind each epistemic modal logic, there is a robust system of justifications. This renders a new, evidencebased foundation for epistemic logic. 1
Deciding regular grammar logics with converse through firstorder logic
 JOURNAL OF LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION
, 2005
"... ..."
A systematic proof theory for several modal logics
 Advances in Modal Logic, volume 5 of King’s College Publications
, 2005
"... abstract. The family of normal propositional modal logic systems is given a very systematic organisation by their model theory. This model theory is generally given using frame semantics, and it is systematic in the sense that for the most important systems we have a clean, exact correspondence betw ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
abstract. The family of normal propositional modal logic systems is given a very systematic organisation by their model theory. This model theory is generally given using frame semantics, and it is systematic in the sense that for the most important systems we have a clean, exact correspondence between their constitutive axioms as they are usually given in a HilbertLewis style and conditions on the accessibility relation on frames. By contrast, the usual structural proof theory of modal logic, as given in Gentzen systems, is adhoc. While we can formulate several modal logics in the sequent calculus that enjoy cutelimination, their formalisation arises through systembysystem fine tuning to ensure that the cutelimination holds, and the correspondence to the axioms of the HilbertLewis systems becomes opaque. This paper introduces a systematic presentation for the systems K, D, M, S4, and S5 in the calculus of structures, a structural proof theory that employs deep inference. Because of this, we are able to axiomatise the modal logics in a manner directly analogous to the HilbertLewis axiomatisation. We show that the calculus possesses a cutelimination property directly analogous to cutelimination for the sequent calculus for these systems, and we discuss the extension to several other modal logics. 1
Permutability of Proofs in Intuitionistic Sequent Calculi
, 1996
"... We prove a folklore theorem, that two derivations in a cutfree sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic (based on Kleene's G3) are interpermutable (using a set of basic "permutation reduction rules" derived from Kleene's work in 1952) iff they determine the same natural deductio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove a folklore theorem, that two derivations in a cutfree sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic (based on Kleene's G3) are interpermutable (using a set of basic "permutation reduction rules" derived from Kleene's work in 1952) iff they determine the same natural deduction. The basic rules form a confluent and weakly normalising rewriting system. We refer to Schwichtenberg's proof elsewhere that a modification of this system is strongly normalising. Key words: intuitionistic logic, proof theory, natural deduction, sequent calculus. 1 Introduction There is a folklore theorem that two intuitionistic sequent calculus derivations are "really the same" iff they are interpermutable, using permutations as described by Kleene in [13]. Our purpose here is to make precise and prove such a "permutability theorem". Prawitz [18] showed how intuitionistic sequent calculus derivations determine natural deductions, via a mapping ' from LJ to NJ (here we consider only ...
Higher Type Recursion, Ramification and Polynomial Time
 Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
, 1999
"... It is shown how to restrict recursion on notation in all finite types so as to characterize the polynomial time computable functions. The restrictions are obtained by enriching the type structure with the formation of types !oe, and by adding linear concepts to the lambda calculus. 1 Introduction ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
It is shown how to restrict recursion on notation in all finite types so as to characterize the polynomial time computable functions. The restrictions are obtained by enriching the type structure with the formation of types !oe, and by adding linear concepts to the lambda calculus. 1 Introduction Recursion in all finite types was introduced by Hilbert [9] and later became known as the essential part of Godel's system T [8]. This system has long been viewed as a powerful scheme unsuitable for describing small complexity classes such as polynomial time. Simmons [16] showed that ramification can be used to characterize the primitive recursive functions by higher type recursion, and Leivant and Marion [14] showed that another form of ramification can be used to restrict higher type recursion to PSPACE. However, to characterize the much smaller class of polynomialtime computable functions by higher type recursion, it seems that an additional principle is required. By introducing linear...