Semantics and Proof Theory of the Epsilon Calculus

The epsilon operator is a term-forming operator which replaces quantifiers in ordinary predicate logic. The application of this undervalued formalism has been hampered by the absence of well-behaved proof systems on the one hand, and accessible presentations of its theory on the other. One significant early result for the original axiomatic proof system for the epsilon-calculus is the first epsilon theorem, for which a proof is sketched. The system itself is discussed, also relative to possible semantic interpretations. The problems facing the development of proof-theoretically well-behaved systems are outlined.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1411.362

Cut-Simulation and Impredicativity

We investigate cut-elimination and cut-simulation in impredicative (higher-order) logics. We illustrate that adding simple axioms such as Leibniz equations to a calculus for an impredicative logic -- in our case a sequent calculus for classical type theory -- is like adding cut. The phenomenon equally applies to prominent axioms like Boolean- and functional extensionality, induction, choice, and description. This calls for the development of calculi where these principles are built-in instead of being treated axiomatically.Comment: 21 page

Analyzing Individual Proofs as the Basis of Interoperability between Proof Systems

We describe the first results of a project of analyzing in which theories formal proofs can be ex- pressed. We use this analysis as the basis of interoperability between proof systems.Comment: In Proceedings PxTP 2017, arXiv:1712.0089

Some observations on the logical foundations of inductive theorem proving

In this paper we study the logical foundations of automated inductive theorem proving. To that aim we first develop a theoretical model that is centered around the difficulty of finding induction axioms which are sufficient for proving a goal. Based on this model, we then analyze the following aspects: the choice of a proof shape, the choice of an induction rule and the language of the induction formula. In particular, using model-theoretic techniques, we clarify the relationship between notions of inductiveness that have been considered in the literature on automated inductive theorem proving. This is a corrected version of the paper arXiv:1704.01930v5 published originally on Nov.~16, 2017

Canonical Proof nets for Classical Logic

Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that (a) there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, (b) it should be possible to check the correctness of a net in polynomial time, (c) every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and (d) there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness. Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In [23], the author presented a calculus of proof nets (expansion nets) satisfying (a) and (b); the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of (c). That sequent calculus, called LK\ast in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper (a self-contained extended version of [23]), we give a full proof of (c) for expansion nets with respect to LK\ast, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets - this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria.Comment: Accepted for publication in APAL (Special issue, Classical Logic and Computation

Classical BI: Its Semantics and Proof Theory

We present Classical BI (CBI), a new addition to the family of bunched logics which originates in O'Hearn and Pym's logic of bunched implications BI. CBI differs from existing bunched logics in that its multiplicative connectives behave classically rather than intuitionistically (including in particular a multiplicative version of classical negation). At the semantic level, CBI-formulas have the normal bunched logic reading as declarative statements about resources, but its resource models necessarily feature more structure than those for other bunched logics; principally, they satisfy the requirement that every resource has a unique dual. At the proof-theoretic level, a very natural formalism for CBI is provided by a display calculus \`a la Belnap, which can be seen as a generalisation of the bunched sequent calculus for BI. In this paper we formulate the aforementioned model theory and proof theory for CBI, and prove some fundamental results about the logic, most notably completeness of the proof theory with respect to the semantics.Comment: 42 pages, 8 figure

Semantic A-translation and Super-consistency entail Classical Cut Elimination

We show that if a theory R defined by a rewrite system is super-consistent, the classical sequent calculus modulo R enjoys the cut elimination property, which was an open question. For such theories it was already known that proofs strongly normalize in natural deduction modulo R, and that cut elimination holds in the intuitionistic sequent calculus modulo R. We first define a syntactic and a semantic version of Friedman's A-translation, showing that it preserves the structure of pseudo-Heyting algebra, our semantic framework. Then we relate the interpretation of a theory in the A-translated algebra and its A-translation in the original algebra. This allows to show the stability of the super-consistency criterion and the cut elimination theorem