From Proof Nets to the Free *-Autonomous Category

In the first part of this paper we present a theory of proof nets for full multiplicative linear logic, including the two units. It naturally extends the well-known theory of unit-free multiplicative proof nets. A linking is no longer a set of axiom links but a tree in which the axiom links are subtrees. These trees will be identified according to an equivalence relation based on a simple form of graph rewriting. We show the standard results of sequentialization and strong normalization of cut elimination. In the second part of the paper we show that the identifications enforced on proofs are such that the class of two-conclusion proof nets defines the free *-autonomous category.Comment: LaTeX, 44 pages, final version for LMCS; v2: updated bibliograph

The Geometry of Synchronization (Long Version)

We graft synchronization onto Girard's Geometry of Interaction in its most concrete form, namely token machines. This is realized by introducing proof-nets for SMLL, an extension of multiplicative linear logic with a specific construct modeling synchronization points, and of a multi-token abstract machine model for it. Interestingly, the correctness criterion ensures the absence of deadlocks along reduction and in the underlying machine, this way linking logical and operational properties.Comment: 26 page

Canonical Proof nets for Classical Logic

Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that (a) there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, (b) it should be possible to check the correctness of a net in polynomial time, (c) every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and (d) there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness. Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In [23], the author presented a calculus of proof nets (expansion nets) satisfying (a) and (b); the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of (c). That sequent calculus, called LK\ast in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper (a self-contained extended version of [23]), we give a full proof of (c) for expansion nets with respect to LK\ast, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets - this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria.Comment: Accepted for publication in APAL (Special issue, Classical Logic and Computation

The Grail theorem prover: Type theory for syntax and semantics

As the name suggests, type-logical grammars are a grammar formalism based on logic and type theory. From the prespective of grammar design, type-logical grammars develop the syntactic and semantic aspects of linguistic phenomena hand-in-hand, letting the desired semantics of an expression inform the syntactic type and vice versa. Prototypical examples of the successful application of type-logical grammars to the syntax-semantics interface include coordination, quantifier scope and extraction.This chapter describes the Grail theorem prover, a series of tools for designing and testing grammars in various modern type-logical grammars which functions as a tool . All tools described in this chapter are freely available

The relational model is injective for Multiplicative Exponential Linear Logic (without weakenings)

We show that for Multiplicative Exponential Linear Logic (without weakenings) the syntactical equivalence relation on proofs induced by cut-elimination coincides with the semantic equivalence relation on proofs induced by the multiset based relational model: one says that the interpretation in the model (or the semantics) is injective. We actually prove a stronger result: two cut-free proofs of the full multiplicative and exponential fragment of linear logic whose interpretations coincide in the multiset based relational model are the same "up to the connections between the doors of exponential boxes".Comment: 36 page