Through and beyond classicality: analyticity, embeddings, infinity

Structural proof theory deals with formal representation of proofs and with the investigation of their properties. This thesis provides an analysis of various non-classical logical systems using proof-theoretic methods. The approach consists in the formulation of analytic calculi for these logics which are then used in order to study their metalogical properties. A specific attention is devoted to studying the connections between classical and non-classical reasoning. In particular, the use of analytic sequent calculi allows one to regain desirable structural properties which are lost in non-classical contexts. In this sense, proof-theoretic versions of embeddings between non-classical logics - both finitary and infinitary - prove to be a useful tool insofar as they build a bridge between different logical regions

A new calculus for intuitionistic Strong L\"ob logic: strong termination and cut-elimination, formalised

We provide a new sequent calculus that enjoys syntactic cut-elimination and strongly terminating backward proof search for the intuitionistic Strong L\"ob logic $\sf{iSL}$, an intuitionistic modal logic with a provability interpretation. A novel measure on sequents is used to prove both the termination of the naive backward proof search strategy, and the admissibility of cut in a syntactic and direct way, leading to a straightforward cut-elimination procedure. All proofs have been formalised in the interactive theorem prover Coq.Comment: 21-page conference paper + 4-page appendix with proof

Nested Sequents for Quantified Modal Logics

This paper studies nested sequents for quantified modal logics. In particular, it considers extensions of the propositional modal logics definable by the axioms D, T, B, 4, and 5 with varying, increasing, decreasing, and constant domains. Each calculus is proved to have good structural properties: weakening and contraction are height-preserving admissible and cut is (syntactically) admissible. Each calculus is shown to be equivalent to the corresponding axiomatic system and, thus, to be sound and complete. Finally, it is argued that the calculi are internal—i.e., each sequent has a formula interpretation—whenever the existence predicate is expressible in the language

Nested Sequents for Quantified Modal Logics

This paper studies nested sequents for quantified modal logics. In particular, it considers extensions of the propositional modal logics definable by the axioms D, T, B, 4, and 5 with varying, increasing, decreasing, and constant domains. Each calculus is proved to have good structural properties: weakening and contraction are height-preserving admissible and cut is (syntactically) admissible. Each calculus is shown to be equivalent to the corresponding axiomatic system and, thus, to be sound and complete. Finally, it is argued that the calculi are internal -- i.e., each sequent has a formula interpretation -- whenever the existence predicate is expressible in the language.Comment: accepted to TABLEAUX 202

Hypersequent Calculi for S5: The Methods of Cut Elimination

S5 is one of the most important modal logic with nice syntactic, semantic and algebraic properties. In spite of that, a successful (i.e. cut-free) formalization of S5 on the ground of standard sequent calculus (SC) was problematic and led to the invention of numerous nonstandard, generalized forms of SC. One of the most interesting framework which was very often used for this aim is that of hypersequent calculi (HC). The paper is a survey of HC for S5 proposed by Pottinger, Avron, Restall, Poggiolesi, Lahav and Kurokawa. We are particularly interested in examining different methods which were used for proving the eliminability/admissibility of cut in these systems and present our own variant of a system which admits relatively simple proof of cut elimination

Formalized Proof Systems for Propositional Logic

We have formalized a range of proof systems for classical propositional logic (sequent calculus, natural deduction, Hilbert systems, resolution) in Isabelle/HOL and have proved the most important meta-theoretic results about semantics and proofs: compactness, soundness, completeness, translations between proof systems, cut-elimination, interpolation and model existence

Gödel mathematics versus Hilbert mathematics. I. The Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: axiom or theorem?

The present first part about the eventual completeness of mathematics (called “Hilbert mathematics”) is concentrated on the Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: if it is an axiom rather than a theorem inferable from the axioms of (Peano) arithmetic, (ZFC) set theory, and propositional logic, this would pioneer the pathway to Hilbert mathematics. One of the main arguments that it is an axiom consists in the direct contradiction of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory. Thus, the pair of arithmetic and set are to be similar to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries distinguishably only by the Fifth postulate now, i.e. after replacing it and its negation correspondingly by the axiom of finiteness (induction) versus that of finiteness being idempotent negations to each other. Indeed, the axiom of choice, as far as it is equivalent to the well-ordering “theorem”, transforms any set in a well-ordering either necessarily finite according to the axiom of induction or also optionally infinite according to the axiom of infinity. So, the Gödel incompleteness statement relies on the logical contradiction of the axiom of induction and the axiom of infinity in the final analysis. Nonetheless, both can be considered as two idempotent versions of the same axiom (analogically to the Fifth postulate) and then unified after logicism and its inherent intensionality since the opposition of finiteness and infinity can be only extensional (i.e., relevant to the elements of any set rather than to the set by itself or its characteristic property being a proposition). So, the pathway for interpreting the Gödel incompleteness statement as an axiom and the originating from that assumption for “Hilbert mathematics” accepting its negation is pioneered. A much wider context relevant to realizing the Gödel incompleteness statement as a metamathematical axiom is consistently built step by step. The horizon of Hilbert mathematics is the proper subject in the third part of the paper, and a reinterpretation of Gödel’s papers (1930; 1931) as an apology of logicism as the only consistent foundations of mathematics is the topic of the next second part

Comparing Calculi for First-Order Infinite-Valued Łukasiewicz Logic and First-Order Rational Pavelka Logic

We consider first-order infinite-valued Łukasiewicz logic and its expansion, first-order rational Pavelka logic RPL∀. From the viewpoint of provability, we compare several Gentzen-type hypersequent calculi for these logics with each other and with Hájek’s Hilbert-type calculi for the same logics. To facilitate comparing previously known calculi for the logics, we define two new analytic calculi for RPL∀ and include them in our comparison. The key part of the comparison is a density elimination proof that introduces no cuts for one of the hypersequent calculi considered.