Comparing and evaluating extended Lambek calculi

Lambeks Syntactic Calculus, commonly referred to as the Lambek calculus, was innovative in many ways, notably as a precursor of linear logic. But it also showed that we could treat our grammatical framework as a logic (as opposed to a logical theory). However, though it was successful in giving at least a basic treatment of many linguistic phenomena, it was also clear that a slightly more expressive logical calculus was needed for many other cases. Therefore, many extensions and variants of the Lambek calculus have been proposed, since the eighties and up until the present day. As a result, there is now a large class of calculi, each with its own empirical successes and theoretical results, but also each with its own logical primitives. This raises the question: how do we compare and evaluate these different logical formalisms? To answer this question, I present two unifying frameworks for these extended Lambek calculi. Both are proof net calculi with graph contraction criteria. The first calculus is a very general system: you specify the structure of your sequents and it gives you the connectives and contractions which correspond to it. The calculus can be extended with structural rules, which translate directly into graph rewrite rules. The second calculus is first-order (multiplicative intuitionistic) linear logic, which turns out to have several other, independently proposed extensions of the Lambek calculus as fragments. I will illustrate the use of each calculus in building bridges between analyses proposed in different frameworks, in highlighting differences and in helping to identify problems.Comment: Empirical advances in categorial grammars, Aug 2015, Barcelona, Spain. 201

On implicit program constructs

Session types are a well-established approach to ensuring protocol conformance and the absence of communication errors such as deadlocks in message passing systems. Implicit parameters, introduced by Haskell and popularised in Scala, are a mechanism to improve program readability and conciseness by allowing the programmer to omit function call arguments, and have the compiler insert them in a principled manner at compile-time. Scala recently gave implicit types first-class status (implicit functions), yielding an expressive tool for handling context dependency in a type-safe manner. DOT (Dependent Object Types) is an object calculus with path-dependent types and abstract type members, developed to serve as a theoretical foundation for the Scala programming language. As yet, DOT does not model all of Scala’s features, but a small subset. Among those features of Scala not yet modelled by DOT are implicit functions. We ask: can type-safe implicit functions be generalised from Scala’s sequential setting to message passing computation, to improve readability and conciseness of message passing programs? We answer this question in the affirmative by generalising the concept of an implicit function to an implicit message, its concurrent analogue, a programming language construct for session-typed concurrent computation. We explore new applications for implicit program constructs by integrating theminto four novel calculi, each demonstrating a new use case or theoretical result for implicits. Firstly, we integrate implicit functions and messages into the concurrent functional language LAST, Gay and Vasconcelos’s calculus of linear types for asynchronous sessions. We demonstrate their utility by example, and explore use cases for both implicit functions and implicit messages. We integrate implicit messages into two pi calculi, further demonstrating the robustness of our approach to extending calculi with implicits. We show that implicit messages are possible in the absence of lambda calculus, in languages with concurrency primitives only, and that they are sound not only in binary session-typed computation, but also in multi-party context. Finally we extend DOT to include implicit functions. We show type safety of the resulting calculus by translation to DOT, lending a higher degree of confidence to the correctness of implicit functions in Scala. We demonstrate that typical use cases for implicit functions in Scala are typably expressible in DOT when extended with implicit functions

De Morgan Dual Nominal Quantifiers Modelling Private Names in Non-Commutative Logic

This paper explores the proof theory necessary for recommending an expressive but decidable first-order system, named MAV1, featuring a de Morgan dual pair of nominal quantifiers. These nominal quantifiers called `new' and `wen' are distinct from the self-dual Gabbay-Pitts and Miller-Tiu nominal quantifiers. The novelty of these nominal quantifiers is they are polarised in the sense that `new' distributes over positive operators while `wen' distributes over negative operators. This greater control of bookkeeping enables private names to be modelled in processes embedded as formulae in MAV1. The technical challenge is to establish a cut elimination result, from which essential properties including the transitivity of implication follow. Since the system is defined using the calculus of structures, a generalisation of the sequent calculus, novel techniques are employed. The proof relies on an intricately designed multiset-based measure of the size of a proof, which is used to guide a normalisation technique called splitting. The presence of equivariance, which swaps successive quantifiers, induces complex inter-dependencies between nominal quantifiers, additive conjunction and multiplicative operators in the proof of splitting. Every rule is justified by an example demonstrating why the rule is necessary for soundly embedding processes and ensuring that cut elimination holds.Comment: Submitted for review 18/2/2016; accepted CONCUR 2016; extended version submitted to journal 27/11/201

Subatomic Proof Systems: Splittable Systems

This paper presents the first in a series of results that allow us to develop a theory providing finer control over the complexity of normalisation, and in particular of cut elimination. By considering atoms as self-dual non-commutative connectives, we are able to classify a vast class of inference rules in a uniform and very simple way. This allows us to define simple conditions that are easily verifiable and that ensure normalisation and cut elimination by way of a general theorem. In this paper we define and consider splittable systems, which essentially comprise a large class of linear logics, including MLL and BV, and we prove for them a splitting theorem, guaranteeing cut elimination and other admissibility results as corollaries. In papers to follow, we will extend this result to non-linear logics. The final outcome will be a comprehensive theory giving a uniform treatment for most existing logics and providing a blueprint for the design of future proof systems.Comment: 32 page

Superposition as a logical glue

The typical mathematical language systematically exploits notational and logical abuses whose resolution requires not just the knowledge of domain specific notation and conventions, but not trivial skills in the given mathematical discipline. A large part of this background knowledge is expressed in form of equalities and isomorphisms, allowing mathematicians to freely move between different incarnations of the same entity without even mentioning the transformation. Providing ITP-systems with similar capabilities seems to be a major way to improve their intelligence, and to ease the communication between the user and the machine. The present paper discusses our experience of integration of a superposition calculus within the Matita interactive prover, providing in particular a very flexible, "smart" application tactic, and a simple, innovative approach to automation.Comment: In Proceedings TYPES 2009, arXiv:1103.311

FICS 2010

International audienceInformal proceedings of the 7th workshop on Fixed Points in Computer Science (FICS 2010), held in Brno, 21-22 August 201

A System of Interaction and Structure III: The Complexity of BV and Pomset Logic

Pomset logic and BV are both logics that extend multiplicative linear logic (with Mix) with a third connective that is self-dual and non-commutative. Whereas pomset logic originates from the study of coherence spaces and proof nets, BV originates from the study of series-parallel orders, cographs, and proof systems. Both logics enjoy a cut-admissibility result, but for neither logic can this be done in the sequent calculus. Provability in pomset logic can be checked via a proof net correctness criterion and in BV via a deep inference proof system. It has long been conjectured that these two logics are the same. In this paper we show that this conjecture is false. We also investigate the complexity of the two logics, exhibiting a huge gap between the two. Whereas provability in BV is NP-complete, provability in pomset logic is $\Sigma_2^p$-complete. We also make some observations with respect to possible sequent systems for the two logics