An inverse of the evaluation functional for typed Lambda-calculus

In any model of typed λ-calculus conianing some basic arithmetic, a functional p - * (procedure—* expression) will be defined which inverts the evaluation functional for typed X-terms, Combined with the evaluation functional, p-e yields an efficient normalization algorithm. The method is extended to X-calculi with constants and is used to normalize (the X-representations of) natural deduction proofs of (higher order) arithmetic. A consequence of theoretical interest is a strong completeness theorem for βη-reduction, generalizing results of Friedman [1] and Statman [31: If two Xterms have the same value in some model containing representations of the primitive recursive functions (of level 1) then they are provably equal in the βη- calculus

An inverse of the evaluation functional for typed Lambda-calculus

In any model of typed λ-calculus conianing some basic arithmetic, a functional p - * (procedure—* expression) will be defined which inverts the evaluation functional for typed X-terms, Combined with the evaluation functional, p-e yields an efficient normalization algorithm. The method is extended to X-calculi with constants and is used to normalize (the X-representations of) natural deduction proofs of (higher order) arithmetic. A consequence of theoretical interest is a strong completeness theorem for βη-reduction, generalizing results of Friedman [1] and Statman [31: If two Xterms have the same value in some model containing representations of the primitive recursive functions (of level 1) then they are provably equal in the βη- calculus

Proof search issues in some non-classical logics

This thesis develops techniques and ideas on proof search. Proof search is used with one of two meanings. Proof search can be thought of either as the search for a yes/no answer to a query (theorem proving), or as the search for all proofs of a formula (proof enumeration). This thesis is an investigation into issues in proof search in both these senses for some non-classical logics. Gentzen systems are well suited for use in proof search in both senses. The rules of Gentzen sequent calculi are such that implementations can be directed by the top level syntax of sequents, unlike other logical calculi such as natural deduction. All the calculi for proof search in this thesis are Gentzen sequent calculi. In Chapter 2, permutation of inference rules for Intuitionistic Linear Logic is studied. A focusing calculus, ILLF, in the style of Andreoli ([And92]) is developed.This calculus allows only one proof in each equivalence class of proofs equivalent up to permutations of inferences. The issue here is both theorem proving and proof enumeration. For certain logics, normal natural deductions provide a proof-theoretic semantics. Proof enumeration is then the enumeration of all these deductions. Herbelin’s cutfree LJT ([Her95], here called MJ) is a Gentzen system for intuitionistic logic allowing derivations that correspond in a 1–1 way to the normal natural deductions of intuitionistic logic. This calculus is therefore well suited to proof enumeration. Such calculi are called ‘permutation-free’ calculi. In Chapter 3, MJ is extended to a calculus for an intuitionistic modal logic (due to Curry) called Lax Logic. We call this calculus PFLAX. The proof theory of MJ is extended to PFLAX. Chapter 4 presents work on theorem proving for propositional logics using a history mechanism for loop-checking. This mechanism is a refinement of one developed by Heuerding et al ([HSZ96]). It is applied to two calculi for intuitionistic logic and also to two modal logics: Lax Logic and intuitionistic S4. The calculi for intuitionistic logic are compared both theoretically and experimentally with other decision procedures for the logic. Chapter 5 is a short investigation of embedding intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic. A new embedding of intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic is given. For the hereditary Harrop fragment of intuitionistic logic, this embedding induces the calculus MJ for intuitionistic logic. In Chapter 6 a ‘permutation-free’ calculus is given for Intuitionistic Linear Logic. Again, its proof-theoretic properties are investigated. The calculus is proved to besound and complete with respect to a proof-theoretic semantics and (weak) cutelimination is proved. Logic programming can be thought of as proof enumeration in constructive logics. All the proof enumeration calculi in this thesis have been developed with logic programming in mind. We discuss at the appropriate points the relationship between the calculi developed here and logic programming. Appendix A contains presentations of the logical calculi used and Appendix B contains the sets of benchmark formulae used in Chapter

Proof Search Issues in Some Non-Classical Logics

This thesis develops techniques and ideas on proof search. Proof search is used with one of two meanings. Proof search can be thought of either as the search for a yes/no answer to a query (theorem proving), or as the search for all proofs of a formula (proof enumeration). This thesis is an investigation into issues in proof search in both these senses for some non-classical logics. Gentzen systems are well suited for use in proof search in both senses. The rules of Gentzen sequent calculi are such that implementations can be directed by the top level syntax of sequents, unlike other logical calculi such as natural deduction. All the calculi for proof search in this thesis are Gentzen sequent calculi. In Chapter 2, permutation of inference rules for Intuitionistic Linear Logic is studied. A focusing calculus, ILLF, in the style of Andreoli (citeandreoli-92) is developed. This calculus allows only one proof in each equivalence class of proofs equivalent up to permutations of inferences. The issue here is both theorem proving and proof enumeration. For certain logics, normal natural deductions provide a proof-theoretic semantics. Proof enumeration is then the enumeration of all these deductions. Herbelin's cut-free LJT (citeherb-95, here called MJ) is a Gentzen system for intuitionistic logic allowing derivations that correspond in a 1--1 way to the normal natural deductions of intuitionistic logic. This calculus is therefore well suited to proof enumeration. Such calculi are called `permutation-free' calculi. In Chapter 3, MJ is extended to a calculus for an intuitionistic modal logic (due to Curry) called Lax Logic. We call this calculus PFLAX. The proof theory of MJ is extended to PFLAX. Chapter 4 presents work on theorem proving for propositional logics using a history mechanism for loop-checking. This mechanism is a refinement of one developed by Heuerding emphet al (citeheu-sey-zim-96). It is applied to two calculi for intuitionistic logic and also to two modal logics: Lax Logic and intuitionistic S4. The calculi for intuitionistic logic are compared both theoretically and experimentally with other decision procedures for the logic. Chapter 5 is a short investigation of embedding intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic. A new embedding of intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic is given. For the hereditary Harrop fragment of intuitionistic logic, this embedding induces the calculus MJ for intuitionistic logic. In Chapter 6 a `permutation-free' calculus is given for Intuitionistic Linear Logic. Again, its proof-theoretic properties are investigated. The calculus is proved to be sound and complete with respect to a proof-theoretic semantics and (weak) cut-elimination is proved. Logic programming can be thought of as proof enumeration in constructive logics. All the proof enumeration calculi in this thesis have been developed with logic programming in mind. We discuss at the appropriate points the relationship between the calculi developed here and logic programming. Appendix A contains presentations of the logical calculi used and Appendix B contains the sets of benchmark formulae used in Chapter 4

Proof search issues in some non-classical logics

This thesis develops techniques and ideas on proof search. Proof search is used with one of two meanings. Proof search can be thought of either as the search for a yes/no answer to a query (theorem proving), or as the search for all proofs of a formula (proof enumeration). This thesis is an investigation into issues in proof search in both these senses for some non-classical logics. Gentzen systems are well suited for use in proof search in both senses. The rules of Gentzen sequent calculi are such that implementations can be directed by the top level syntax of sequents, unlike other logical calculi such as natural deduction. All the calculi for proof search in this thesis are Gentzen sequent calculi. In Chapter 2, permutation of inference rules for Intuitionistic Linear Logic is studied. A focusing calculus, ILLF, in the style of Andreoli ([And92]) is developed. This calculus allows only one proof in each equivalence class of proofs equivalent up to permutations of inferences. The issue here is both theorem proving and proof enumeration. For certain logics, normal natural deductions provide a proof-theoretic semantics. Proof enumeration is then the enumeration of all these deductions. Herbelin's cut- free LJT ([Her95], here called MJ) is a Gentzen system for intuitionistic logic allowing derivations that correspond in a 1-1 way to the normal natural deductions of intuitionistic logic. This calculus is therefore well suited to proof enumeration. Such calculi are called 'permutation-free' calculi. In Chapter 3, MJ is extended to a calculus for an intuitionistic modal logic (due to Curry) called Lax Logic. We call this calculus PFLAX. The proof theory of MJ is extended to PFLAX. Chapter 4 presents work on theorem proving for propositional logics using a history mechanism for loop-checking. This mechanism is a refinement of one developed by Heuerding et al ([HSZ96]). It is applied to two calculi for intuitionistic logic and also to two modal logics; Lax Logic and intuitionistic S4. The calculi for intuitionistic logic are compared both theoretically and experimentally with other decision procedures for the logic. Chapter 5 is a short investigation of embedding intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic. A new embedding of intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic is given. For the hereditary Harrop fragment of intuitionistic logic, this embedding induces the calculus MJ for intuitionistic logic. In Chapter 6 a 'permutation-free' calculus is given for Intuitionistic Linear Logic. Again, its proof-theoretic properties are investigated. The calculus is proved to be sound and complete with respect to a proof-theoretic semantics and (weak) cut- elimination is proved. Logic programming can be thought of as proof enumeration in constructive logics. All the proof enumeration calculi in this thesis have been developed with logic programming in mind. We discuss at the appropriate points the relationship between the calculi developed here and logic programming. Appendix A contains presentations of the logical calculi used and Appendix B contains the sets of benchmark formulae used in Chapter 4

Linearizing Intuitionistic Implication

An embedding of the implicational propositional intuitionistic logic (iil) into the nonmodal fragment of intuitionistic linear logic (imall) is given. The embedding preserves cut-free proofs in a proof system that is a variant of iil. The embedding is efficient and provides an alternative proof of the pspace-hardness of imall. It exploits several proof-theoretic properties of intuitionistic implication that analyze the use of resources in iil proofs. Linear logic is a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic that provides an intrinsic and natural accounting of resources. In Girard's words [12], "linear logic is a logic behind logic." A convenient way to present linear logic is by modifying the traditional Gentzen-style sequent calculus axiomatization of classical logic (see, e.g., [15, 22]). The modification may be briefly described in three steps. The first step is to remove two structural rules, contraction and weakening, which manipulate the use of hypotheses and conclusi..