Natural deduction for intuitionistic linear logic

AbstractThe paper deals with two versions of the fragment with unit, tensor, linear implication and storage operator (the exponential!) of intuitionistic linear logic. The first version, ILL, appears in a paper by Benton, Bierman, Hyland and de Paiva; the second one, ILL+, is described in this paper. ILL has a contraction rule and an introduction rule !I for the exponential; in ILL+, instead of a contraction rule, multiple occurrences of labels for assumptions are permitted under certain conditions; moreover, there is a different introduction rule for the exponential, !I+, which is closer in spirit to the necessitation rule for the normalizable version of S4 discussed by Prawitz in his monograph “Natural Deduction”.It is relatively easy to adapt Prawitz's treatment of natural deduction for intuitionistic logic to ILL+; in particular one can formulate a notion of strong validity (as in Prawitz's “Ideas and Results in Proof Theory”) permitting a proof of strong normalization.The conversion rules for ILL explicitly mentioned in the paper by Benton et al. do not suffice for normal forms with subformula property, but we can show that this can be remedied by addition of a special permutation conversion plus some “satellite” permutation conversions.Some discussion of the categorical models which might correspond to ILL+ is given

Focusing in linear meta-logic: extended report

It is well known how to use an intuitionistic meta-logic to specify natural deduction systems. It is also possible to use linear logic as a meta-logic for the specification of a variety of sequent calculus proof systems. Here, we show that if we adopt different {\em focusing} annotations for such linear logic specifications, a range of other proof systems can also be specified. In particular, we show that natural deduction (normal and non-normal), sequent proofs (with and without cut), tableaux, and proof systems using general elimination and general introduction rules can all be derived from essentially the same linear logic specification by altering focusing annotations. By using elementary linear logic equivalences and the completeness of focused proofs, we are able to derive new and modular proofs of the soundness and completeness of these various proofs systems for intuitionistic and classical logics

A system of inference based on proof search: an extended abstract

Gentzen designed his natural deduction proof system to ``come as close as possible to actual reasoning.'' Indeed, natural deduction proofs closely resemble the static structure of logical reasoning in mathematical arguments. However, different features of inference are compelling to capture when one wants to support the process of searching for proofs. PSF (Proof Search Framework) attempts to capture these features naturally and directly. The design and metatheory of PSF are presented, and its ability to specify a range of proof systems for classical, intuitionistic, and linear logic is illustrated

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

An Alternative Natural Deduction for the Intuitionistic Propositional Logic

A natural deduction system NI, for the full propositional intuitionistic logic, is proposed. The operational rules of NI are obtained by the translation from Gentzen’s calculus LJ and the normalization is proved, via translations from sequent calculus derivations to natural deduction derivations and back.This work is supported by the Ministary of Science and Technology of Serbia, grant number ON174026

Propositional Logics Complexity and the Sub-Formula Property

In 1979 Richard Statman proved, using proof-theory, that the purely implicational fragment of Intuitionistic Logic (M-imply) is PSPACE-complete. He showed a polynomially bounded translation from full Intuitionistic Propositional Logic into its implicational fragment. By the PSPACE-completeness of S4, proved by Ladner, and the Goedel translation from S4 into Intuitionistic Logic, the PSPACE- completeness of M-imply is drawn. The sub-formula principle for a deductive system for a logic L states that whenever F1,...,Fk proves A, there is a proof in which each formula occurrence is either a sub-formula of A or of some of Fi. In this work we extend Statman result and show that any propositional (possibly modal) structural logic satisfying a particular formulation of the sub-formula principle is in PSPACE. If the logic includes the minimal purely implicational logic then it is PSPACE-complete. As a consequence, EXPTIME-complete propositional logics, such as PDL and the common-knowledge epistemic logic with at least 2 agents satisfy this particular sub-formula principle, if and only if, PSPACE=EXPTIME. We also show how our technique can be used to prove that any finitely many-valued logic has the set of its tautologies in PSPACE.Comment: In Proceedings DCM 2014, arXiv:1504.0192