Fragments and frame classes:Towards a uniform proof theory for modal fixed point logics

This thesis studies the proof theory of modal fixed point logics. In particular, we construct proof systems for various fragments of the modal mu-calculus, interpreted over various classes of frames. With an emphasis on uniform constructions and general results, we aim to bring the relatively underdeveloped proof theory of modal fixed point logics closer to the well-established proof theory of basic modal logic. We employ two main approaches. First, we seek to generalise existing methods for basic modal logic to accommodate fragments of the modal mu-calculus. We use this approach for obtaining Hilbert-style proof systems. Secondly, we adapt existing proof systems for the modal mu-calculus to various classes of frames. This approach yields proof systems which are non-well-founded, or cyclic.The thesis starts with an introduction and some mathematical preliminaries. In Chapter 3 we give hypersequent calculi for modal logic with the master modality, building on work by Ori Lahav. This is followed by an Intermezzo, where we present an abstract framework for cyclic proofs, in which we give sufficient conditions for establishing the bounded proof property. In Chapter 4 we generalise existing work on Hilbert-style proof systems for PDL to the level of the continuous modal mu-calculus. Chapter 5 contains a novel cyclic proof system for the alternation-free two-way modal mu-calculus. Finally, in Chapter 6, we present a cyclic proof system for Guarded Kleene Algebra with Tests and take a first step towards using it to establish the completeness of an algebraic counterpart

Semirings of Evidence

In traditional justification logic, evidence terms have the syntactic form of polynomials, but they are not equipped with the corresponding algebraic structure. We present a novel semantic approach to justification logic that models evidence by a semiring. Hence justification terms can be interpreted as polynomial functions on that semiring. This provides an adequate semantics for evidence terms and clarifies the role of variables in justification logic. Moreover, the algebraic structure makes it possible to compute with evidence. Depending on the chosen semiring this can be used to model trust, probabilities, cost, etc. Last but not least the semiring approach seems promising for obtaining a realization procedure for modal fixed point logics

Cut-elimination for the mu-calculus with one variable

We establish syntactic cut-elimination for the one-variable fragment of the modal mu-calculus. Our method is based on a recent cut-elimination technique by Mints that makes use of Buchholz' Omega-rule.Comment: In Proceedings FICS 2012, arXiv:1202.317

Changing a semantics: opportunism or courage?

The generalized models for higher-order logics introduced by Leon Henkin, and their multiple offspring over the years, have become a standard tool in many areas of logic. Even so, discussion has persisted about their technical status, and perhaps even their conceptual legitimacy. This paper gives a systematic view of generalized model techniques, discusses what they mean in mathematical and philosophical terms, and presents a few technical themes and results about their role in algebraic representation, calibrating provability, lowering complexity, understanding fixed-point logics, and achieving set-theoretic absoluteness. We also show how thinking about Henkin's approach to semantics of logical systems in this generality can yield new results, dispelling the impression of adhocness. This paper is dedicated to Leon Henkin, a deep logician who has changed the way we all work, while also being an always open, modest, and encouraging colleague and friend.Comment: 27 pages. To appear in: The life and work of Leon Henkin: Essays on his contributions (Studies in Universal Logic) eds: Manzano, M., Sain, I. and Alonso, E., 201

Lower bounds for the state complexity of probabilistic languages and the language of prime numbers

This paper studies the complexity of languages of finite words using automata theory. To go beyond the class of regular languages, we consider infinite automata and the notion of state complexity defined by Karp. Motivated by the seminal paper of Rabin from 1963 introducing probabilistic automata, we study the (deterministic) state complexity of probabilistic languages and prove that probabilistic languages can have arbitrarily high deterministic state complexity. We then look at alternating automata as introduced by Chandra, Kozen and Stockmeyer: such machines run independent computations on the word and gather their answers through boolean combinations. We devise a lower bound technique relying on boundedly generated lattices of languages, and give two applications of this technique. The first is a hierarchy theorem, stating that there are languages of arbitrarily high polynomial alternating state complexity, and the second is a linear lower bound on the alternating state complexity of the prime numbers written in binary. This second result strengthens a result of Hartmanis and Shank from 1968, which implies an exponentially worse lower bound for the same model.Comment: Submitted to the Journal of Logic and Computation, Special Issue on LFCS'2016) (Logical Foundations of Computer Science). Guest Editors: S. Artemov and A. Nerode. This journal version extends two conference papers: the first published in the proceedings of LFCS'2016 and the second in the proceedings of LICS'2018. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1607.0025

MacNeille Completion and Buchholz\u27 Omega Rule for Parameter-Free Second Order Logics

Buchholz\u27 Omega-rule is a way to give a syntactic, possibly ordinal-free proof of cut elimination for various subsystems of second order arithmetic. Our goal is to understand it from an algebraic point of view. Among many proofs of cut elimination for higher order logics, Maehara and Okada\u27s algebraic proofs are of particular interest, since the essence of their arguments can be algebraically described as the (Dedekind-)MacNeille completion together with Girard\u27s reducibility candidates. Interestingly, it turns out that the Omega-rule, formulated as a rule of logical inference, finds its algebraic foundation in the MacNeille completion. In this paper, we consider a family of sequent calculi LIP = cup_{n >= -1} LIP_n for the parameter-free fragments of second order intuitionistic logic, that corresponds to the family ID_{<omega} = cup_{n <omega} ID_n of arithmetical theories of inductive definitions up to omega. In this setting, we observe a formal connection between the Omega-rule and the MacNeille completion, that leads to a way of interpreting second order quantifiers in a first order way in Heyting-valued semantics, called the Omega-interpretation. Based on this, we give a (partly) algebraic proof of cut elimination for LIP_n, in which quantification over reducibility candidates, that are genuinely second order, is replaced by the Omega-interpretation, that is essentially first order. As a consequence, our proof is locally formalizable in ID-theories