Tool support for reasoning in display calculi

We present a tool for reasoning in and about propositional sequent calculi. One aim is to support reasoning in calculi that contain a hundred rules or more, so that even relatively small pen and paper derivations become tedious and error prone. As an example, we implement the display calculus D.EAK of dynamic epistemic logic. Second, we provide embeddings of the calculus in the theorem prover Isabelle for formalising proofs about D.EAK. As a case study we show that the solution of the muddy children puzzle is derivable for any number of muddy children. Third, there is a set of meta-tools, that allows us to adapt the tool for a wide variety of user defined calculi

Infinets: The parallel syntax for non-wellfounded proof-theory

Logics based on the µ-calculus are used to model induc-tive and coinductive reasoning and to verify reactive systems. A well-structured proof-theory is needed in order to apply such logics to the study of programming languages with (co)inductive data types and automated (co)inductive theorem proving. While traditional proof system suffers some defects, non-wellfounded (or infinitary) and circular proofs have been recognized as a valuable alternative, and significant progress have been made in this direction in recent years. Such proofs are non-wellfounded sequent derivations together with a global validity condition expressed in terms of progressing threads. The present paper investigates a discrepancy found in such proof systems , between the sequential nature of sequent proofs and the parallel structure of threads: various proof attempts may have the exact threading structure while differing in the order of inference rules applications. The paper introduces infinets, that are proof-nets for non-wellfounded proofs in the setting of multiplicative linear logic with least and greatest fixed-points (µMLL ∞) and study their correctness and sequentialization. Inductive and coinductive reasoning is pervasive in computer science to specify and reason about infinite data as well as reactive properties. Developing appropriate proof systems amenable to automated reasoning over (co)inductive statements is therefore important for designing programs as well as for analyzing computational systems. Various logical settings have been introduced to reason about such inductive and coinductive statements, both at the level of the logical languages modelling (co)induction (such as Martin Löf's inductive predicates or fixed-point logics, also known as µ-calculi) and at the level of the proof-theoretical framework considered (finite proofs with explicit (co)induction rulesà la Park [23] or infinite, non-wellfounded proofs with fixed-point unfold-ings) [6-8, 4, 1, 2]. Moreover, such proof systems have been considered over classical logic [6, 8], intuitionistic logic [9], linear-time or branching-time temporal logic [19, 18, 25, 26, 13-15] or linear logic [24, 16, 4, 3, 14]

A Cyclic Proof System for Full Computation Tree Logic

Full Computation Tree Logic, commonly denoted CTL*, is the extension of Linear Temporal Logic LTL by path quantification for reasoning about branching time. In contrast to traditional Computation Tree Logic CTL, the path quantifiers are not bound to specific linear modalities, resulting in a more expressive language. We present a sound and complete hypersequent calculus for CTL*. The proof system is cyclic in the sense that proofs are finite derivation trees with back-edges. A syntactic success condition on non-axiomatic leaves guarantees soundness. Completeness is established by relating cyclic proofs to a natural ill-founded sequent calculus for the logic

Infinets: The parallel syntax for non-wellfounded proof-theory

International audienceLogics based on the µ-calculus are used to model inductive and coinductive reasoning and to verify reactive systems. A well-structured proof-theory is needed in order to apply such logics to the study of programming languages with (co)inductive data types and automated (co)inductive theorem proving. While traditional proof system suffers some defects, non-wellfounded (or infinitary) and circular proofs have been recognized as a valuable alternative, and significant progress have been made in this direction in recent years. Such proofs are non-wellfounded sequent derivations together with a global validity condition expressed in terms of progressing threads. The present paper investigates a discrepancy found in such proof systems , between the sequential nature of sequent proofs and the parallel structure of threads: various proof attempts may have the exact threading structure while differing in the order of inference rules applications. The paper introduces infinets, that are proof-nets for non-wellfounded proofs in the setting of multiplicative linear logic with least and greatest fixed-points (µMLL ∞) and study their correctness and sequentialization