Deep Inference

Deep inference could succinctly be described as an extreme form of linear logic [11]. It is a methodology for designing proof formalisms that generalise Gentzen formalisms, i.e. the sequent calculus and natural deduction [10]. In a sense, deep inference is obtained by applying some of the main concepts behind linear logi

A Non-Commutative Extension of MELL

We extend multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) by a non-commutative, self-dual logical operator. The extended system, called NEL, is defined in the formalism of the calculus of structures, which is a generalisation of the sequent calculus and provides a more refined analysis of proofs. We should then be able to extend the range of applications of MELL, by modelling a broad notion of sequentiality and providing new properties of proofs. We show some proof theoretical results: decomposition and cut elimination. The new operator represents a significant challenge: to get our results we use here for the first time some novel techniques, which constitute a uniform and modular approach to cut elimination, contrary to what is possible in the sequent calculus

A proof-theoretic view on scheduling in concurrency

This paper elaborates on a new approach of the question of the proof-theoretic study of concurrent interaction called "proofs as schedules". Observing that proof theory is well suited to the description of confluent systems while concurrency has non-determinism as a fundamental feature, we develop a correspondence where proofs provide what is needed to make concurrent systems confluent, namely scheduling. In our logical system, processes and schedulers appear explicitly as proofs in different fragments of the proof language and cut elimination between them does correspond to execution of a concurrent system. This separation of roles suggests new insights for the denotational semantics of processes and new methods for the translation of pi-calculi into prefix-less formalisms (like solos) as the operational counterpart of translations between proof systems

The Sub-Additives: A Proof Theory for Probabilistic Choice extending Linear Logic

Probabilistic choice, where each branch of a choice is weighted according to a probability distribution, is an established approach for modelling processes, quantifying uncertainty in the environment and other sources of randomness. This paper uncovers new insight showing probabilistic choice has a purely logical interpretation as an operator in an extension of linear logic. By forbidding projection and injection, we reveal additive operators between the standard with and plus operators of linear logic. We call these operators the sub-additives. The attention of the reader is drawn to two sub-additive operators: the first being sound with respect to probabilistic choice; while the second arises due to the fact that probabilistic choice cannot be self-dual, hence has a de Morgan dual counterpart. The proof theoretic justification for the sub-additives is a cut elimination result, employing a technique called decomposition. The justification from the perspective of modelling probabilistic concurrent processes is that implication is sound with respect to established notions of probabilistic refinement, and is fully compositional

On the Length of Medial-Switch-Mix Derivations

International audienceSwitch and medial are two inference rules that play a central role in many deep inference proof systems. In specific proof systems, the mix rule may also be present. In this paper we show that the maximal length of a derivation using only the inference rules for switch, medial, and mix, modulo associativity and commutativity of the two binary con-nectives involved, is quadratic in the size of the formula at the conclusion of the derivation. This shows, at the same time, the termination of the rewrite system

BV and Pomset Logic Are Not the Same

BV and pomset logic are two logics that both conservatively extend unit-free multiplicative linear logic by a third binary connective, which (i) is non-commutative, (ii) is self-dual, and (iii) lies between the "par" and the "tensor". It was conjectured early on (more than 20 years ago), that these two logics, that share the same language, that both admit cut elimination, and whose connectives have essentially the same properties, are in fact the same. In this paper we show that this is not the case. We present a formula that is provable in pomset logic but not in BV

Normalisation Control in Deep Inference via Atomic Flows

We introduce `atomic flows': they are graphs obtained from derivations by tracing atom occurrences and forgetting the logical structure. We study simple manipulations of atomic flows that correspond to complex reductions on derivations. This allows us to prove, for propositional logic, a new and very general normalisation theorem, which contains cut elimination as a special case. We operate in deep inference, which is more general than other syntactic paradigms, and where normalisation is more difficult to control. We argue that atomic flows are a significant technical advance for normalisation theory, because 1) the technique they support is largely independent of syntax; 2) indeed, it is largely independent of logical inference rules; 3) they constitute a powerful geometric formalism, which is more intuitive than syntax