Grafting Hypersequents onto Nested Sequents

We introduce a new Gentzen-style framework of grafted hypersequents that combines the formalism of nested sequents with that of hypersequents. To illustrate the potential of the framework, we present novel calculi for the modal logics $\mathsf{K5}$ and $\mathsf{KD5}$, as well as for extensions of the modal logics $\mathsf{K}$ and $\mathsf{KD}$ with the axiom for shift reflexivity. The latter of these extensions is also known as $\mathsf{SDL}^+$ in the context of deontic logic. All our calculi enjoy syntactic cut elimination and can be used in backwards proof search procedures of optimal complexity. The tableaufication of the calculi for $\mathsf{K5}$ and $\mathsf{KD5}$ yields simplified prefixed tableau calculi for these logic reminiscent of the simplified tableau system for $\mathsf{S5}$, which might be of independent interest

Inducing syntactic cut-elimination for indexed nested sequents

The key to the proof-theoretic study of a logic is a proof calculus with a subformula property. Many different proof formalisms have been introduced (e.g. sequent, nested sequent, labelled sequent formalisms) in order to provide such calculi for the many logics of interest. The nested sequent formalism was recently generalised to indexed nested sequents in order to yield proof calculi with the subformula property for extensions of the modal logic K by (Lemmon-Scott) Geach axioms. The proofs of completeness and cut-elimination therein were semantic and intricate. Here we show that derivations in the labelled sequent formalism whose sequents are `almost treelike' correspond exactly to indexed nested sequents. This correspondence is exploited to induce syntactic proofs for indexed nested sequent calculi making use of the elegant proofs that exist for the labelled sequent calculi. A larger goal of this work is to demonstrate how specialising existing proof-theoretic transformations alleviate the need for independent proofs in each formalism. Such coercion can also be used to induce new cutfree calculi. We employ this to present the first indexed nested sequent calculi for intermediate logics.Comment: This is an extended version of the conference paper [20

Proof Theory for Intuitionistic Strong L\"ob Logic

This paper introduces two sequent calculi for intuitionistic strong L\"ob logic ${\sf iSL}_\Box$: a terminating sequent calculus ${\sf G4iSL}_\Box$ based on the terminating sequent calculus ${\sf G4ip}$ for intuitionistic propositional logic ${\sf IPC}$ and an extension ${\sf G3iSL}_\Box$ of the standard cut-free sequent calculus ${\sf G3ip}$ without structural rules for ${\sf IPC}$. One of the main results is a syntactic proof of the cut-elimination theorem for ${\sf G3iSL}_\Box$. In addition, equivalences between the sequent calculi and Hilbert systems for ${\sf iSL}_\Box$ are established. It is known from the literature that ${\sf iSL}_\Box$ is complete with respect to the class of intuitionistic modal Kripke models in which the modal relation is transitive, conversely well-founded and a subset of the intuitionistic relation. Here a constructive proof of this fact is obtained by using a countermodel construction based on a variant of ${\sf G4iSL}_\Box$. The paper thus contains two proofs of cut-elimination, a semantic and a syntactic proof.Comment: 29 pages, 4 figures, submitted to the Special Volume of the Workshop Proofs! held in Paris in 201

Kripke Models for Classical Logic

We introduce a notion of Kripke model for classical logic for which we constructively prove soundness and cut-free completeness. We discuss the novelty of the notion and its potential applications

The Basics of Display Calculi

The aim of this paper is to introduce and explain display calculi for a variety of logics. We provide a survey of key results concerning such calculi, though we focus mainly on the global cut elimination theorem. Propositional, first-order, and modal display calculi are considered and their properties detailed

Syntactic completeness of proper display calculi

A recent strand of research in structural proof theory aims at exploring the notion of analytic calculi (i.e. those calculi that support general and modular proof-strategies for cut elimination), and at identifying classes of logics that can be captured in terms of these calculi. In this context, Wansing introduced the notion of proper display calculi as one possible design framework for proof calculi in which the analiticity desiderata are realized in a particularly transparent way. Recently, the theory of properly displayable logics (i.e. those logics that can be equivalently presented with some proper display calculus) has been developed in connection with generalized Sahlqvist theory (aka unified correspondence). Specifically, properly displayable logics have been syntactically characterized as those axiomatized by analytic inductive axioms, which can be equivalently and algorithmically transformed into analytic structural rules so that the resulting proper display calculi enjoy a set of basic properties: soundness, completeness, conservativity, cut elimination and subformula property. In this context, the proof that the given calculus is complete w.r.t. the original logic is usually carried out syntactically, i.e. by showing that a (cut free) derivation exists of each given axiom of the logic in the basic system to which the analytic structural rules algorithmically generated from the given axiom have been added. However, so far this proof strategy for syntactic completeness has been implemented on a case-by-case base, and not in general. In this paper, we address this gap by proving syntactic completeness for properly displayable logics in any normal (distributive) lattice expansion signature. Specifically, we show that for every analytic inductive axiom a cut free derivation can be effectively generated which has a specific shape, referred to as pre-normal form.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1604.08822 by other author