Infinitary λ\lambda-Calculi from a Linear Perspective (Long Version)

We introduce a linear infinitary $\lambda$-calculus, called $\ell\Lambda_{\infty}$, in which two exponential modalities are available, the first one being the usual, finitary one, the other being the only construct interpreted coinductively. The obtained calculus embeds the infinitary applicative $\lambda$-calculus and is universal for computations over infinite strings. What is particularly interesting about $\ell\Lambda_{\infty}$, is that the refinement induced by linear logic allows to restrict both modalities so as to get calculi which are terminating inductively and productive coinductively. We exemplify this idea by analysing a fragment of $\ell\Lambda$ built around the principles of $\mathsf{SLL}$ and $\mathsf{4LL}$. Interestingly, it enjoys confluence, contrarily to what happens in ordinary infinitary $\lambda$-calculi

On natural deduction in fixpoint logics

In the current paper we present a powerful technique of obtaining natural deduction (or, in other words, Gentzen-like) proof systems for first-order fixpoint logics. The term "fixpoint logics" refers collectively to a class of logics consisting of modal logics with modalities definable at meta-level by fixpoint equations on formulas. The class was found very interesting as it contains most logics of programs with e.g. dynamic logic, temporal logic and, of course, mu-calculus among them. Fixpoint logics were intensively studied during the last decade. In this paper we are going to present some results concerning deductive systems for first-order fixpoint logics. In particular we shall present some powerful and general technique for obtaining natural deduction (Gentzen-like) systems for fixpoint logics. As those logics are usually totally undecidable, we show how to obtain complete (but infinitary) proof systems as well as relatively complete (finitistic) ones. More precisely, given fixpoint equations on formulas defining nonclassical connectives of a logic, we automatically derive Gentzen-like proof systems for the logic. The discussion of implementation problems is also provided

Informal proof, formal proof, formalism

Increases in the use of automated theorem-provers have renewed focus on the relationship between the informal proofs normally found in mathematical research and fully formalised derivations. Whereas some claim that any correct proof will be underwritten by a fully formal proof, sceptics demur. In this paper I look at the relevance of these issues for formalism, construed as an anti-platonistic metaphysical doctrine. I argue that there are strong reasons to doubt that all proofs are fully formalisable, if formal proofs are required to be finitary, but that, on a proper view of the way in which formal proofs idealise actual practice, this restriction is unjustified and formalism is not threatened

A Cyclic Proof System for HFL_?

A cyclic proof system allows us to perform inductive reasoning without explicit inductions. We propose a cyclic proof system for HFLN, which is a higher-order predicate logic with natural numbers and alternating fixed-points. Ours is the first cyclic proof system for a higher-order logic, to our knowledge. Due to the presence of higher-order predicates and alternating fixed-points, our cyclic proof system requires a more delicate global condition on cyclic proofs than the original system of Brotherston and Simpson. We prove the decidability of checking the global condition and soundness of this system, and also prove a restricted form of standard completeness for an infinitary variant of our cyclic proof system. A potential application of our cyclic proof system is semi-automated verification of higher-order programs, based on Kobayashi et al.'s recent work on reductions from program verification to HFLN validity checking.Comment: 27 page