Focused and Synthetic Nested Sequents (Extended Technical Report)

Focusing is a general technique for transforming a sequent proof system into one with a syntactic separation of non-deterministic choices without sacrificing completeness. This not only improves proof search, but also has the representational benefit of distilling sequent proofs into synthetic normal forms. We show how to apply the focusing technique to nested sequent calculi, a generalization of ordinary sequent calculi to tree-like instead of list-like structures. We thus improve the reach of focusing to the most commonly studied modal logics, the logics of the modal S5 cube. Among our key contributions is a focused cut-elimination theorem for focused nested sequents.This is an extended version of a paper with the same title and authors that appears in the Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (FoSSaCS), Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2-4 April 2016. This version contains full proofs of all the important lemmas and theorems

Focused Proof-search in the Logic of Bunched Implications

The logic of Bunched Implications (BI) freely combines additive and multiplicative connectives, including implications; however, despite its well-studied proof theory, proof-search in BI has always been a difficult problem. The focusing principle is a restriction of the proof-search space that can capture various goal-directed proof-search procedures. In this paper, we show that focused proof-search is complete for BI by first reformulating the traditional bunched sequent calculus using the simpler data-structure of nested sequents, following with a polarised and focused variant that we show is sound and complete via a cut-elimination argument. This establishes an operational semantics for focused proof-search in the logic of Bunched Implications.Comment: 18 pages conten

A focused framework for emulating modal proof systems

International audienceSeveral deductive formalisms (e.g., sequent, nested sequent, labeled sequent, hyperse-quent calculi) have been used in the literature for the treatment of modal logics, and some connections between these formalisms are already known. Here we propose a general framework, which is based on a focused version of the labeled sequent calculus by Negri, augmented with some parametric devices allowing to restrict the set of proofs. By properly defining such restrictions and by choosing an appropriate polarization of formulas, one can obtain different, concrete proof systems for the modal logic K and for its extensions by means of geometric axioms. In particular, we show how to use the expressiveness of the labeled approach and the control mechanisms of focusing in order to emulate in our framework the behavior of a range of existing formalisms and proof systems for modal logic

Proof-theoretic Semantics and Tactical Proof

The use of logical systems for problem-solving may be as diverse as in proving theorems in mathematics or in figuring out how to meet up with a friend. In either case, the problem solving activity is captured by the search for an \emph{argument}, broadly conceived as a certificate for a solution to the problem. Crucially, for such a certificate to be a solution, it has be \emph{valid}, and what makes it valid is that they are well-constructed according to a notion of inference for the underlying logical system. We provide a general framework uniformly describing the use of logic as a mathematics of reasoning in the above sense. We use proof-theoretic validity in the Dummett-Prawitz tradition to define validity of arguments, and use the theory of tactical proof to relate arguments, inference, and search.Comment: submitte

Taming Bounded Depth with Nested Sequents

International audienceBounded depth refers to a property of Kripke frames that serve as semantics for intuitionistic logic. We introduce nested sequent calculi for the intermediate logics of bounded depth. Our calculi are obtained in a modular way by adding suitable structural rules to a variant of Fitting's calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic, for which we present the first syntactic cut elimination proof. This proof modularly extends to the new nested sequent calculi introduced in this paper

Proof Search in Multi-Agent Dialogues for Modal Logic

In computer science, and also in philosophy, modal logics play an important role in various areas. They can be used to model knowledge structures among software-agents, behaviour of computer systems, or ontologies. They also provide mathematical tools to perform reasoning in these models, e.g., to extract common knowledge of agents, check whether security-relevant problems might occur when running a program, or to detect contradictions in a set of terminological definitions. Intuitionistic or constructive propositional logic can be considered as a special kind of modal logic. Constructive modal logics, as a combination of intuitionistic propositional logic and classical modal logics, describe a family of modal systems which are, compared to the classical variant, more restrictive concerning the validity of formulas. To prove validity of a statement formalized in such a logic, various reasoning procedures (also called calculi) have been investigated. There are especially many variants of sequent and tableau systems which can be used easily to find proofs by applying given syntactical rules one after another. Sometimes there are different possibilities to find a proof for the same formula within the same calculus. It also happens that a bad choice of non-invertible rule applications at the wrong time makes it impossible to finish the proof successfully, although the formula is provable. For this reason, a normalization of deductions in a calculus is desired. This restricts the possibilities to apply rules arbitrarily and emphasizes the situations in which significant, non-invertible rule applications are necessary. Such a normalization is enforced in so-called focused sequent systems. Another attempt to find a normalized calculus leads to dialogical logic, a game-theoretic reasoning technique. Usually, two players, one proponent and one opponent, argue about an assertion, expressed as a formula and stated by the proponent at the beginning of the play. The kinds of arguments, namely attacks and defences, are bound to special game rules. These are designed in such a way that the proponent has a winning strategy in the game if and only if his initial statement is a valid formula. The dialogical approach is very flexible as the game rules can be adjusted easily. Sets of rules exist to perform reasoning in many different kinds of logic, however proving soundness and completeness of dialogical calculi is complex and, if at all, often only considered very roughly in the literature. The standard two-player dialogues do not have much potential to enforce normalization like focus sequent systems. However, it turns out that introducing further proponent-players who fight against one opponent in a round-based setting leads to a normalization as described above. The flexibility of two-player games is largely preserved in multi-proponent dialogues. Other ordinary sequent systems can easily be transferred into the dialectic setting to achieve a normalization. Further, the round-based scheduling induces a method to parallelize the reasoning process. Modifying the game rules makes it possible to construct new intermediate or even more restrictive logics. In this work, dialogical systems with multiple proponents are presented for intuitionistic propositional logic and modal logics S4 and CS4. Starting with the former one, it is shown that the normalization can be transferred easily to both the latter systems. Informal game rules are introduced and, to make them concrete and unambiguous, translated into the dialogical sequent-style calculi DiaSeqI, DiaSeqS4, and DiaSeqCS4. An extra system for intuitionistic logic, which guarantees termination in proof searches, even if the target formula is not valid, is also provided. Soundness and completeness of all these presented dialogical sequent calculi is proven formally, by showing that it is always possible to translate derivations in the game-oriented approach into another sound and complete sequent system and vice versa. Thereby, a new (ordinary) multi-conclusion sequent calculus for CS4 is introduced for which adequateness is shown, too. The multi-proponent dialogical systems of this work are compared to different sequent calculi and other dialogical attempts found in literature. A comprehensive survey of such approaches is also part of this thesis

Focused and Synthetic Nested Sequents

Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2016International audienceFocusing is a general technique for transforming a sequent proof system into one with a syntactic separation of non-deterministic choices without sacrificing completeness. This not only improves proof search, but also has the representational benefit of distilling sequent proofs into synthetic normal forms. We show how to apply the focusing technique to nested sequent calculi, a generalization of ordinary sequent calculi to tree-like instead of list-like structures. We thus improve the reach of focusing to the most commonly studied modal logics, the logics of the modal S5 cube. Among our key contributions is a focused cut-elimination theorem for focused nested sequents