On the Computational Meaning of Axioms

An anti-realist theory of meaning suitable for both logical and proper axioms is investigated. As opposed to other anti-realist accounts, like Dummett-Prawitz verificationism, the standard framework of classical logic is not called into question. In particular, semantical features are not limited solely to inferential ones, but also computational aspects play an essential role in the process of determination of meaning. In order to deal with such computational aspects, a relaxation of syntax is shown to be necessary. This leads to a general kind of proof theory, where the objects of study are not typed objects like deductions, but rather untyped ones, in which formulas have been replaced by geometrical configurations

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

Non uniform (hyper/multi)coherence spaces

In (hyper)coherence semantics, proofs/terms are cliques in (hyper)graphs. Intuitively, vertices represent results of computations and the edge relation witnesses the ability of being assembled into a same piece of data or a same (strongly) stable function, at arrow types. In (hyper)coherence semantics, the argument of a (strongly) stable functional is always a (strongly) stable function. As a consequence, comparatively to the relational semantics, where there is no edge relation, some vertices are missing. Recovering these vertices is essential for the purpose of reconstructing proofs/terms from their interpretations. It shall also be useful for the comparison with other semantics, like game semantics. In [BE01], Bucciarelli and Ehrhard introduced a so called non uniform coherence space semantics where no vertex is missing. By constructing the co-free exponential we set a new version of this last semantics, together with non uniform versions of hypercoherences and multicoherences, a new semantics where an edge is a finite multiset. Thanks to the co-free construction, these non uniform semantics are deterministic in the sense that the intersection of a clique and of an anti-clique contains at most one vertex, a result of interaction, and extensionally collapse onto the corresponding uniform semantics.Comment: 32 page

Anti-exceptionalism and methodological pluralism in logic

According to methodological anti-exceptionalism, logic follows a scientific methodology. There has been some discussion about which methodology logic has. Authors such as Priest, Hjortland and Williamson have argued that logic can be characterized by an abductive methodology. We choose the logical theory that behaves better under a set of epistemic criteria (such as fit to data, simplicity, fruitfulness, or consistency). In this paper, I analyze some important discussions in the philosophy of logic (intuitionism versus classical logic, semantic paradoxes, and the meaning of conditionals), and I show that they presuppose different methodologies, involving different notions of evidence and different epistemic values. I argue that, rather than having a specific methodology such as abductivism, logic can be characterized by methodological pluralism. This position can also be seen as the application of scientific pluralism to the realm of logic

Non-associative, Non-commutative Multi-modal Linear Logic

Adding multi-modalities (called subexponentials) to linear logic enhances its power as a logical framework, which has been extensively used in the specification of e.g. proof systems, programming languages and bigraphs. Initially, subexponentials allowed for classical, linear, affine or relevant behaviors. Recently, this framework was enhanced so to allow for commutativity as well. In this work, we close the cycle by considering associativity. We show that the resulting system (acLLΣ ) admits the (multi)cut rule, and we prove two undecidability results for fragments/variations of acLLΣ

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

Linear-Logic Based Analysis of Constraint Handling Rules with Disjunction

Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a declarative committed-choice programming language with a strong relationship to linear logic. Its generalization CHR with Disjunction (CHRv) is a multi-paradigm declarative programming language that allows the embedding of horn programs. We analyse the assets and the limitations of the classical declarative semantics of CHR before we motivate and develop a linear-logic declarative semantics for CHR and CHRv. We show how to apply the linear-logic semantics to decide program properties and to prove operational equivalence of CHRv programs across the boundaries of language paradigms

Proceedings of the Workshop on Linear Logic and Logic Programming

Declarative programming languages often fail to effectively address many aspects of control and resource management. Linear logic provides a framework for increasing the strength of declarative programming languages to embrace these aspects. Linear logic has been used to provide new analyses of Prolog\u27s operational semantics, including left-to-right/depth-first search and negation-as-failure. It has also been used to design new logic programming languages for handling concurrency and for viewing program clauses as (possibly) limited resources. Such logic programming languages have proved useful in areas such as databases, object-oriented programming, theorem proving, and natural language parsing. This workshop is intended to bring together researchers involved in all aspects of relating linear logic and logic programming. The proceedings includes two high-level overviews of linear logic, and six contributed papers. Workshop organizers: Jean-Yves Girard (CNRS and University of Paris VII), Dale Miller (chair, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), and Remo Pareschi, (ECRC, Munich)