Focusing and Polarization in Intuitionistic Logic

A focused proof system provides a normal form to cut-free proofs that structures the application of invertible and non-invertible inference rules. The focused proof system of Andreoli for linear logic has been applied to both the proof search and the proof normalization approaches to computation. Various proof systems in literature exhibit characteristics of focusing to one degree or another. We present a new, focused proof system for intuitionistic logic, called LJF, and show how other 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 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

Propositional logic extended with a pedagogically useful relevant implication

First and foremost, this paper concerns the combination of classical propositional logic with a relevant implication. The proposed combination is simple and transparent from a proof theoretic point of view and at the same time extremely useful for relating formal logic to natural language sentences. A specific system will be presented and studied, also from a semantic point of view. The last sections of the paper contain more general considerations on combining classical propositional logic with a relevant logic that has all classical theorems as theorems

Kripke Semantics and Proof Systems for Combining Intuitionistic Logic and Classical Logic

International audienceWe combine intuitionistic logic and classical logic into a new, first-order logic called Polarized Intuitionistic Logic. This logic is based on a distinction between two dual polarities which we call red and green to distinguish them from other forms of polarization. The meaning of these polarities is defined model-theoretically by a Kripke-style semantics for the logic. Two proof systems are also formulated. The first system extends Gentzen's intuitionistic sequent calculus LJ. In addition, this system also bears essential similarities to Girard's LC proof system for classical logic. The second proof system is based on a semantic tableau and extends Dragalin's multiple-conclusion version of intuitionistic sequent calculus. We show that soundness and completeness hold for these notions of semantics and proofs, from which it follows that cut is admissible in the proof systems and that the propositional fragment of the logic is decidable

The three dimensions of proofs

In this document, we study a 3-polygraphic translation for the proofs of SKS, a formal system for classical propositional logic. We prove that the free 3-category generated by this 3-polygraph describes the proofs of classical propositional logic modulo structural bureaucracy. We give a 3-dimensional generalization of Penrose diagrams and use it to provide several pictures of a proof. We sketch how local transformations of proofs yield a non contrived example of 4-dimensional rewriting.Comment: 38 pages, 50 figure

Defining Logical Systems via Algebraic Constraints on Proofs

We comprehensively present a program of decomposition of proof systems for non-classical logics into proof systems for other logics, especially classical logic, using an algebra of constraints. That is, one recovers a proof system for a target logic by enriching a proof system for another, typically simpler, logic with an algebra of constraints that act as correctness conditions on the latter to capture the former; for example, one may use Boolean algebra to give constraints in a sequent calculus for classical propositional logic to produce a sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic. The idea behind such forms of reduction is to obtain a tool for uniform and modular treatment of proof theory and provide a bridge between semantics logics and their proof theory. The article discusses the theoretical background of the project and provides several illustrations of its work in the field of intuitionistic and modal logics. The results include the following: a uniform treatment of modular and cut-free proof systems for a large class of propositional logics; a general criterion for a novel approach to soundness and completeness of a logic with respect to a model-theoretic semantics; and a case study deriving a model-theoretic semantics from a proof-theoretic specification of a logic.Comment: submitte

Programming and proving with classical types

The propositions-as-types correspondence is ordinarily presen- ted as linking the metatheory of typed λ-calculi and the proof theory of intuitionistic logic. Griffin observed that this correspondence could be extended to classical logic through the use of control operators. This observation set off a flurry of further research, leading to the development of Parigot’s λμ-calculus. In this work, we use the λμ-calculus as the foundation for a system of proof terms for classical first-order logic. In particular, we define an extended call-by-value λμ-calculus with a type system in correspondence with full classical logic. We extend the language with polymorphic types, add a host of data types in ‘direct style’, and prove several metatheoretical properties. All of our proofs and definitions are mechanised in Isabelle/HOL, and we automatically obtain an inter- preter for a system of proof terms cum programming language—called μML—using Isabelle’s code generation mechanism. Atop our proof terms, we build a prototype LCF-style interactive theorem prover—called μTP— for classical first-order logic, capable of synthesising μML programs from completed tactic-driven proofs. We present example closed μML programs with classical tautologies for types, including some inexpressible as closed programs in the original λμ-calculus, and some example tactic-driven μTP proofs of classical tautologies