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

Sequentiality vs. Concurrency in Games and Logic

Connections between the sequentiality/concurrency distinction and the semantics of proofs are investigated, with particular reference to games and Linear Logic.Comment: 35 pages, appeared in Mathematical Structures in Computer Scienc

Provability in BI's Sequent Calculus is Decidable

The logic of Bunched Implications (BI) combines both additive and multiplicative connectives, which include two primitive intuitionistic implications. As a consequence, contexts in the sequent presentation are not lists, nor multisets, but rather tree-like structures called bunches. This additional complexity notwithstanding, the logic has a well-behaved metatheory admitting all the familiar forms of semantics and proof systems. However, the presentation of an effective proof-search procedure has been elusive since the logic's debut. We show that one can reduce the proof-search space for any given sequent to a primitive recursive set, the argument generalizing Gentzen's decidability argument for classical propositional logic and combining key features of Dyckhoff's contraction-elimination argument for intuitionistic logic. An effective proof-search procedure, and hence decidability of provability, follows as a corollary.Comment: Submitted to CADE-2

Through and beyond classicality: analyticity, embeddings, infinity

Structural proof theory deals with formal representation of proofs and with the investigation of their properties. This thesis provides an analysis of various non-classical logical systems using proof-theoretic methods. The approach consists in the formulation of analytic calculi for these logics which are then used in order to study their metalogical properties. A specific attention is devoted to studying the connections between classical and non-classical reasoning. In particular, the use of analytic sequent calculi allows one to regain desirable structural properties which are lost in non-classical contexts. In this sense, proof-theoretic versions of embeddings between non-classical logics - both finitary and infinitary - prove to be a useful tool insofar as they build a bridge between different logical regions

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

Proceedings of the Workshop on Linear Logic and Logic Programming

Declarative programming languages often fail to effectively address many aspects of control and resource management. Linear logic provides a framework for increasing the strength of declarative programming languages to embrace these aspects. Linear logic has been used to provide new analyses of Prolog\u27s operational semantics, including left-to-right/depth-first search and negation-as-failure. It has also been used to design new logic programming languages for handling concurrency and for viewing program clauses as (possibly) limited resources. Such logic programming languages have proved useful in areas such as databases, object-oriented programming, theorem proving, and natural language parsing. This workshop is intended to bring together researchers involved in all aspects of relating linear logic and logic programming. The proceedings includes two high-level overviews of linear logic, and six contributed papers. Workshop organizers: Jean-Yves Girard (CNRS and University of Paris VII), Dale Miller (chair, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), and Remo Pareschi, (ECRC, Munich)