Integrating a Global Induction Mechanism into a Sequent Calculus

Most interesting proofs in mathematics contain an inductive argument which requires an extension of the LK-calculus to formalize. The most commonly used calculi for induction contain a separate rule or axiom which reduces the valid proof theoretic properties of the calculus. To the best of our knowledge, there are no such calculi which allow cut-elimination to a normal form with the subformula property, i.e. every formula occurring in the proof is a subformula of the end sequent. Proof schemata are a variant of LK-proofs able to simulate induction by linking proofs together. There exists a schematic normal form which has comparable proof theoretic behaviour to normal forms with the subformula property. However, a calculus for the construction of proof schemata does not exist. In this paper, we introduce a calculus for proof schemata and prove soundness and completeness with respect to a fragment of the inductive arguments formalizable in Peano arithmetic.Comment: 16 page

Schematic Cut elimination and the Ordered Pigeonhole Principle [Extended Version]

In previous work, an attempt was made to apply the schematic CERES method [8] to a formal proof with an arbitrary number of {\Pi} 2 cuts (a recursive proof encapsulating the infinitary pigeonhole principle) [5]. However the derived schematic refutation for the characteristic clause set of the proof could not be expressed in the formal language provided in [8]. Without this formalization a Herbrand system cannot be algorithmically extracted. In this work, we provide a restriction of the proof found in [5], the ECA-schema (Eventually Constant Assertion), or ordered infinitary pigeonhole principle, whose analysis can be completely carried out in the framework of [8], this is the first time the framework is used for proof analysis. From the refutation of the clause set and a substitution schema we construct a Herbrand system.Comment: Submitted to IJCAR 2016. Will be a reference for Appendix material in that paper. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1503.0855

Generating Schemata of Resolution Proofs

Two distinct algorithms are presented to extract (schemata of) resolution proofs from closed tableaux for propositional schemata. The first one handles the most efficient version of the tableau calculus but generates very complex derivations (denoted by rather elaborate rewrite systems). The second one has the advantage that much simpler systems can be obtained, however the considered proof procedure is less efficient

A New Arithmetically Incomplete First- Order Extension of Gl All Theorems of Which Have Cut Free Proofs

Reference [12] introduced a novel formula to formula translation tool (“formulators”) that enables syntactic metatheoretical investigations of first-order modal logics, bypassing a need to convert them first into Gentzen style logics in order to rely on cut elimination and the subformula property. In fact, the formulator tool, as was already demonstrated in loc. cit., is applicable even to the metatheoretical study of logics such as QGL, where cut elimination is (provably, [2]) unavailable. This paper applies the formulator approach to show the independence of the axiom schema _A ! _8xA of the logics M3 and ML3 of [17, 18, 11, 13]. This leads to the conclusion that the two logics obtained by removing this axiom are incomplete, both with respect to their natural Kripke structures and to arithmetical interpretations. In particular, the so modified ML3 is, similarly to QGL, an arithmetically incomplete first-order extension of GL, but, unlike QGL, all its theorems have cut free proofs. We also establish here, via formulators, a stronger version of the disjunction property for GL and QGL without going through Gentzen versions of these logics (compare with the more complex proofs in [2, 8]).This research was partially supported by NSERC grant No. 8250

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

Elimination of Cuts in First-order Finite-valued Logics

A uniform construction for sequent calculi for finite-valued first-order logics with distribution quantifiers is exhibited. Completeness, cut-elimination and midsequent theorems are established. As an application, an analog of Herbrand’s theorem for the four-valued knowledge-representation logic of Belnap and Ginsberg is presented. It is indicated how this theorem can be used for reasoning about knowledge bases with incomplete and inconsistent information