From truth to computability I

The recently initiated approach called computability logic is a formal theory of interactive computation. See a comprehensive online source on the subject at http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html . The present paper contains a soundness and completeness proof for the deductive system CL3 which axiomatizes the most basic first-order fragment of computability logic called the finite-depth, elementary-base fragment. Among the potential application areas for this result are the theory of interactive computation, constructive applied theories, knowledgebase systems, systems for resource-bound planning and action. This paper is self-contained as it reintroduces all relevant definitions as well as main motivations.Comment: To appear in Theoretical Computer Scienc

From truth to computability II

Computability logic is a formal theory of computational tasks and resources. Formulas in it represent interactive computational problems, and "truth" is understood as algorithmic solvability. Interactive computational problems, in turn, are defined as a certain sort games between a machine and its environment, with logical operators standing for operations on such games. Within the ambitious program of finding axiomatizations for incrementally rich fragments of this semantically introduced logic, the earlier article "From truth to computability I" proved soundness and completeness for system CL3, whose language has the so called parallel connectives (including negation), choice connectives, choice quantifiers, and blind quantifiers. The present paper extends that result to the significantly more expressive system CL4 with the same collection of logical operators. What makes CL4 expressive is the presence of two sorts of atoms in its language: elementary atoms, representing elementary computational problems (i.e. predicates, i.e. problems of zero degree of interactivity), and general atoms, representing arbitrary computational problems. CL4 conservatively extends CL3, with the latter being nothing but the general-atom-free fragment of the former. Removing the blind (classical) group of quantifiers from the language of CL4 is shown to yield a decidable logic despite the fact that the latter is still first-order. A comprehensive online source on computability logic can be found at http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.htm

The Computational Complexity of Propositional Cirquent Calculus

Introduced in 2006 by Japaridze, cirquent calculus is a refinement of sequent calculus. The advent of cirquent calculus arose from the need for a deductive system with a more explicit ability to reason about resources. Unlike the more traditional proof-theoretic approaches that manipulate tree-like objects (formulas, sequents, etc.), cirquent calculus is based on circuit-style structures called cirquents, in which different "peer" (sibling, cousin, etc.) substructures may share components. It is this resource sharing mechanism to which cirquent calculus owes its novelty (and its virtues). From its inception, cirquent calculus has been paired with an abstract resource semantics. This semantics allows for reasoning about the interaction between a resource provider and a resource user, where resources are understood in the their most general and intuitive sense. Interpreting resources in a more restricted computational sense has made cirquent calculus instrumental in axiomatizing various fundamental fragments of Computability Logic, a formal theory of (interactive) computability. The so-called "classical" rules of cirquent calculus, in the absence of the particularly troublesome contraction rule, produce a sound and complete system CL5 for Computability Logic. In this paper, we investigate the computational complexity of CL5, showing it is $\Sigma_2^p$-complete. We also show that CL5 without the duplication rule has polynomial size proofs and is NP-complete

Introduction to Cirquent Calculus and Abstract Resource Semantics

This paper introduces a refinement of the sequent calculus approach called cirquent calculus. While in Gentzen-style proof trees sibling (or cousin, etc.) sequents are disjoint sequences of formulas, in cirquent calculus they are permitted to share elements. Explicitly allowing or disallowing shared resources and thus taking to a more subtle level the resource-awareness intuitions underlying substructural logics, cirquent calculus offers much greater flexibility and power than sequent calculus does. A need for substantially new deductive tools came with the birth of computability logic (see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html) - the semantically constructed formal theory of computational resources, which has stubbornly resisted any axiomatization attempts within the framework of traditional syntactic approaches. Cirquent calculus breaks the ice. Removing contraction from the full collection of its rules yields a sound and complete system for the basic fragment CL5 of computability logic. Doing the same in sequent calculus, on the other hand, throws out the baby with the bath water, resulting in the strictly weaker affine logic. An implied claim of computability logic is that it is CL5 rather than affine logic that adequately materializes the resource philosophy traditionally associated with the latter. To strengthen this claim, the paper further introduces an abstract resource semantics and shows the soundness and completeness of CL5 with respect to it.Comment: To appear in Journal of Logic and Computatio