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

NaDeA: A Natural Deduction Assistant with a Formalization in Isabelle

We present a new software tool for teaching logic based on natural deduction. Its proof system is formalized in the proof assistant Isabelle such that its definition is very precise. Soundness of the formalization has been proved in Isabelle. The tool is open source software developed in TypeScript / JavaScript and can thus be used directly in a browser without any further installation. Although developed for undergraduate computer science students who are used to study and program concrete computer code in a programming language we consider the approach relevant for a broader audience and for other proof systems as well.Comment: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tools for Teaching Logic (TTL2015), Rennes, France, June 9-12, 2015. Editors: M. Antonia Huertas, Jo\~ao Marcos, Mar\'ia Manzano, Sophie Pinchinat, Fran\c{c}ois Schwarzentrube

Distributed First Order Logic

Distributed First Order Logic (DFOL) has been introduced more than ten years ago with the purpose of formalising distributed knowledge-based systems, where knowledge about heterogeneous domains is scattered into a set of interconnected modules. DFOL formalises the knowledge contained in each module by means of first-order theories, and the interconnections between modules by means of special inference rules called bridge rules. Despite their restricted form in the original DFOL formulation, bridge rules have influenced several works in the areas of heterogeneous knowledge integration, modular knowledge representation, and schema/ontology matching. This, in turn, has fostered extensions and modifications of the original DFOL that have never been systematically described and published. This paper tackles the lack of a comprehensive description of DFOL by providing a systematic account of a completely revised and extended version of the logic, together with a sound and complete axiomatisation of a general form of bridge rules based on Natural Deduction. The resulting DFOL framework is then proposed as a clear formal tool for the representation of and reasoning about distributed knowledge and bridge rules

Enhanced Realizability Interpretation for Program Extraction

This thesis presents Intuitionistic Fixed Point Logic (IFP), a schema for formal systems aimed to work with program extraction from proofs. IFP in its basic form allows proof construction based on natural deduction inference rules, extended by induction and coinduction. The corresponding system RIFP (IFP with realiz-ers) enables transforming logical proofs into programs utilizing the enhanced re-alizability interpretation. The theoretical research is put into practice in PRAWF1, a Haskell-based proof assistant for program extraction

On Natural Deduction in Classical First-Order Logic: Curry-Howard Correspondence, Strong Normalization and Herbrand's Theorem

International audienceWe present a new Curry-Howard correspondence for classical first-order natural deduction. We add to the lambda calculus an operator which represents, from the viewpoint of programming, a mechanism for raising and catching multiple exceptions, and from the viewpoint of logic, the excluded middle over arbitrary prenex formulas. The machinery will allow to extend the idea of learning -- originally developed in Arithmetic -- to pure logic. We prove that our typed calculus is strongly normalizing and show that proof terms for simply existential statements reduce to a list of individual terms forming a Herbrand disjunction. A by-product of our approach is a natural-deduction proof and a computational interpretation of Herbrand's Theorem

On Natural Deduction for Herbrand Constructive Logics II: Curry-Howard Correspondence for Markov\u27s Principle in First-Order Logic and Arithmetic

Intuitionistic first-order logic extended with a restricted form of Markov\u27s principle is constructive and admits a Curry-Howard correspondence, as shown by Herbelin. We provide a simpler proof of that result and then we study intuitionistic first-order logic extended with unrestricted Markov\u27s principle. Starting from classical natural deduction, we restrict the excluded middle and we obtain a natural deduction system and a parallel Curry-Howard isomorphism for the logic. We show that proof terms for existentially quantified formulas reduce to a list of individual terms representing all possible witnesses. As corollary, we derive that the logic is Herbrand constructive: whenever it proves any existential formula, it proves also an Herbrand disjunction for the formula. Finally, using the techniques just introduced, we also provide a new computational interpretation of Arithmetic with Markov\u27s principle

Deriving Safety Cases from Machine-Generated Proofs

Proofs provide detailed justification for the validity of claims and are widely used in formal software development methods. However, they are often complex and difficult to understand, because they use machine-oriented formalisms; they may also be based on assumptions that are not justified. This causes concerns about the trustworthiness of using formal proofs as arguments in safety-critical applications. Here, we present an approach to develop safety cases that correspond to formal proofs found by automated theorem provers and reveal the underlying argumentation structure and top-level assumptions. We concentrate on natural deduction proofs and show how to construct the safety cases by covering the proof tree with corresponding safety case fragments