165 research outputs found
On the Correspondence between Display Postulates and Deep Inference in Nested Sequent Calculi for Tense Logics
We consider two styles of proof calculi for a family of tense logics,
presented in a formalism based on nested sequents. A nested sequent can be seen
as a tree of traditional single-sided sequents. Our first style of calculi is
what we call "shallow calculi", where inference rules are only applied at the
root node in a nested sequent. Our shallow calculi are extensions of Kashima's
calculus for tense logic and share an essential characteristic with display
calculi, namely, the presence of structural rules called "display postulates".
Shallow calculi enjoy a simple cut elimination procedure, but are unsuitable
for proof search due to the presence of display postulates and other structural
rules. The second style of calculi uses deep-inference, whereby inference rules
can be applied at any node in a nested sequent. We show that, for a range of
extensions of tense logic, the two styles of calculi are equivalent, and there
is a natural proof theoretic correspondence between display postulates and deep
inference. The deep inference calculi enjoy the subformula property and have no
display postulates or other structural rules, making them a better framework
for proof search
On the correspondence between display postulates and deep inference in nested sequent calculi for tense logics
We consider two styles of proof calculi for a family of tense logics, presented in a formalism based on nested sequents. A nested sequent can be seen as a tree of traditional single-sided sequents. Our first style of calculi is what we call "shallow calculi", where inference rules are only applied at the root node in a nested sequent. Our shallow calculi are extensions of Kashima's calculus for tense logic and share an essential characteristic with display calculi, namely, the presence of structural rules called "display postulates". Shallow calculi enjoy a simple cut elimination procedure, but are unsuitable for proof search due to the presence of display postulates and other structural rules. The second style of calculi uses deep-inference, whereby inference rules can be applied at any node in a nested sequent. We show that, for a range of extensions of tense logic, the two styles of calculi are equivalent, and there is a natural proof theoretic correspondence between display postulates and deep inference. The deep inference calculi enjoy the subformula property and have no display postulates or other structural rules, making them a better framework for proof search
Internal Calculi for Separation Logics
We present a general approach to axiomatise separation logics with heaplet semantics with no external features such as nominals/labels. To start with, we design the first (internal) Hilbert-style axiomatisation for the quantifier-free separation logic SL(?, -*). We instantiate the method by introducing a new separation logic with essential features: it is equipped with the separating conjunction, the predicate ls, and a natural guarded form of first-order quantification. We apply our approach for its axiomatisation. As a by-product of our method, we also establish the exact expressive power of this new logic and we show PSpace-completeness of its satisfiability problem
Proof-theoretic Semantics for Intuitionistic Multiplicative Linear Logic
This work is the first exploration of proof-theoretic semantics for a substructural logic. It focuses on the base-extension semantics (B-eS) for intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic (IMLL). The starting point is a review of Sandqvist’s B-eS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL), for which we propose an alternative treatment of conjunction that takes the form of the generalized elimination rule for the connective. The resulting semantics is shown to be sound and complete. This motivates our main contribution, a B-eS for IMLL
, in which the definitions of the logical constants all take the form of their elimination rule and for which soundness and completeness are established
Defining Logical Systems via Algebraic Constraints on Proofs
We comprehensively present a program of decomposition of proof systems for
non-classical logics into proof systems for other logics, especially classical
logic, using an algebra of constraints. That is, one recovers a proof system
for a target logic by enriching a proof system for another, typically simpler,
logic with an algebra of constraints that act as correctness conditions on the
latter to capture the former; for example, one may use Boolean algebra to give
constraints in a sequent calculus for classical propositional logic to produce
a sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic. The idea behind such
forms of reduction is to obtain a tool for uniform and modular treatment of
proof theory and provide a bridge between semantics logics and their proof
theory. The article discusses the theoretical background of the project and
provides several illustrations of its work in the field of intuitionistic and
modal logics. The results include the following: a uniform treatment of modular
and cut-free proof systems for a large class of propositional logics; a general
criterion for a novel approach to soundness and completeness of a logic with
respect to a model-theoretic semantics; and a case study deriving a
model-theoretic semantics from a proof-theoretic specification of a logic.Comment: submitte
Cut-restriction: from cuts to analytic cuts
Cut-elimination is the bedrock of proof theory with a multitude of
applications from computational interpretations to proof analysis. It is also
the starting point for important meta-theoretical investigations including
decidability, complexity, disjunction property, and interpolation.
Unfortunately cut-elimination does not hold for the sequent calculi of most
non-classical logics. It is well-known that the key to applications is the
subformula property (a typical consequence of cut-elimination) rather than
cut-elimination itself. With this in mind we introduce cut-restriction, a
procedure to restrict arbitrary cuts to analytic cuts (when elimination is not
possible). The algorithm applies to all sequent calculi satisfying
language-independent and simple-to-check conditions, and it is obtained by
adapting age-old cut-elimination. Our work encompasses existing results in a
uniform way, and establishes novel analytic subformula properties.Comment: 13 pages, conference preprin
- …