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

Sequent Calculus in the Topos of Trees

Nakano's "later" modality, inspired by G\"{o}del-L\"{o}b provability logic, has been applied in type systems and program logics to capture guarded recursion. Birkedal et al modelled this modality via the internal logic of the topos of trees. We show that the semantics of the propositional fragment of this logic can be given by linear converse-well-founded intuitionistic Kripke frames, so this logic is a marriage of the intuitionistic modal logic KM and the intermediate logic LC. We therefore call this logic $\mathrm{KM}_{\mathrm{lin}}$. We give a sound and cut-free complete sequent calculus for $\mathrm{KM}_{\mathrm{lin}}$ via a strategy that decomposes implication into its static and irreflexive components. Our calculus provides deterministic and terminating backward proof-search, yields decidability of the logic and the coNP-completeness of its validity problem. Our calculus and decision procedure can be restricted to drop linearity and hence capture KM.Comment: Extended version, with full proof details, of a paper accepted to FoSSaCS 2015 (this version edited to fix some minor typos

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

Comparing and evaluating extended Lambek calculi

Lambeks Syntactic Calculus, commonly referred to as the Lambek calculus, was innovative in many ways, notably as a precursor of linear logic. But it also showed that we could treat our grammatical framework as a logic (as opposed to a logical theory). However, though it was successful in giving at least a basic treatment of many linguistic phenomena, it was also clear that a slightly more expressive logical calculus was needed for many other cases. Therefore, many extensions and variants of the Lambek calculus have been proposed, since the eighties and up until the present day. As a result, there is now a large class of calculi, each with its own empirical successes and theoretical results, but also each with its own logical primitives. This raises the question: how do we compare and evaluate these different logical formalisms? To answer this question, I present two unifying frameworks for these extended Lambek calculi. Both are proof net calculi with graph contraction criteria. The first calculus is a very general system: you specify the structure of your sequents and it gives you the connectives and contractions which correspond to it. The calculus can be extended with structural rules, which translate directly into graph rewrite rules. The second calculus is first-order (multiplicative intuitionistic) linear logic, which turns out to have several other, independently proposed extensions of the Lambek calculus as fragments. I will illustrate the use of each calculus in building bridges between analyses proposed in different frameworks, in highlighting differences and in helping to identify problems.Comment: Empirical advances in categorial grammars, Aug 2015, Barcelona, Spain. 201