Focusing and Polarization in Intuitionistic Logic

A focused proof system provides a normal form to cut-free proofs that structures the application of invertible and non-invertible inference rules. The focused proof system of Andreoli for linear logic has been applied to both the proof search and the proof normalization approaches to computation. Various proof systems in literature exhibit characteristics of focusing to one degree or another. We present a new, focused proof system for intuitionistic logic, called LJF, and show how other proof systems can be mapped into the new system by inserting logical connectives that prematurely stop focusing. We also use LJF to design a focused proof system for classical logic. Our approach to the design and analysis of these systems is based on the completeness of focusing in linear logic and on the notion of polarity that appears in Girard's LC and LU proof systems

Polarizing Double Negation Translations

Double-negation translations are used to encode and decode classical proofs in intuitionistic logic. We show that, in the cut-free fragment, we can simplify the translations and introduce fewer negations. To achieve this, we consider the polarization of the formul{\ae}{} and adapt those translation to the different connectives and quantifiers. We show that the embedding results still hold, using a customized version of the focused classical sequent calculus. We also prove the latter equivalent to more usual versions of the sequent calculus. This polarization process allows lighter embeddings, and sheds some light on the relationship between intuitionistic and classical connectives

On Various Negative Translations

Several proof translations of classical mathematics into intuitionistic mathematics have been proposed in the literature over the past century. These are normally referred to as negative translations or double-negation translations. Among those, the most commonly cited are translations due to Kolmogorov, Godel, Gentzen, Kuroda and Krivine (in chronological order). In this paper we propose a framework for explaining how these different translations are related to each other. More precisely, we define a notion of a (modular) simplification starting from Kolmogorov translation, which leads to a partial order between different negative translations. In this derived ordering, Kuroda and Krivine are minimal elements. Two new minimal translations are introduced, with Godel and Gentzen translations sitting in between Kolmogorov and one of these new translations.Comment: In Proceedings CL&C 2010, arXiv:1101.520

Session Types in Abelian Logic

There was a PhD student who says "I found a pair of wooden shoes. I put a coin in the left and a key in the right. Next morning, I found those objects in the opposite shoes." We do not claim existence of such shoes, but propose a similar programming abstraction in the context of typed lambda calculi. The result, which we call the Amida calculus, extends Abramsky's linear lambda calculus LF and characterizes Abelian logic.Comment: In Proceedings PLACES 2013, arXiv:1312.221

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

Resource modalities in game semantics

The description of resources in game semantics has never achieved the simplicity and precision of linear logic, because of a misleading conception: the belief that linear logic is more primitive than game semantics. We advocate instead the contrary: that game semantics is conceptually more primitive than linear logic. Starting from this revised point of view, we design a categorical model of resources in game semantics, and construct an arena game model where the usual notion of bracketing is extended to multi- bracketing in order to capture various resource policies: linear, affine and exponential

Classical polarizations yield double-negation translations

Double-negation translations map formulas to formulas in such a way that if a formula is a classical theorem then its translation is an intuitionistic theorem. We shall go beyond just examining provability by looking at correspondences between inference rules in classical proofs and in intuitionistic proofs of translated formulas. In order to make this comparison interesting and precise, we will examine focused versions of proofs in classical and intuitionistic logics using the LKF and LJF proof systems. We shall show that for a number of known double-negation translations, one can get essentially identical (focused) intuitionistic proofs as (focused) classical proofs. Thus the choice of a common double-negation translation is really the same choice as a polarization of classical logic (of which there are many)

From delimited CPS to polarisation

Appeared in the author's PhD thesis (Chapter III) along with more details. See (and cite) Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni, Syntax and Models of a non-Associative Composition of Programs and Proofs, Université Paris-Diderot - Paris VII, 2013, .The understanding of continuation-passing style (CPS) translations, an historical source of denotational semantics for programming languages, benefits from notions brought by linear logic, such as focalisation, polarities and the involutive negation. Here we aim to show how linear logic helps as well when continuations are delimited, i.e. return and can be composed, in the sense of Danvy and Filinski. First we provide a polarised calculus with delimited control (first-class delimited continuations) which is, at the level of computation, a variant of Girard's polarised classical logic LC. It contains variants of delimited control calculi which spawned as answers to the question "what order of evaluation can we consider with delimited control?". Thus our polarised calculus is one answer which is unifying to some degree. Subsequently we decompose the calculus through polarised linear logic. The only difference with non-delimited continuations is the use of specific exponentials, that account for the specific semantics of the target of delimited CPS translation, as well as annotations of type-and-effect systems. As a by-product, we obtain an explanation of CPS translations through a factoring, each step of which accounts for distinct phenomena of CPS translations. Although the factoring also holds for non-delimited CPS translations, it did not appear in its entirety before