On the relative proof complexity of deep inference via atomic flows

We consider the proof complexity of the minimal complete fragment, KS, of standard deep inference systems for propositional logic. To examine the size of proofs we employ atomic flows, diagrams that trace structural changes through a proof but ignore logical information. As results we obtain a polynomial simulation of versions of Resolution, along with some extensions. We also show that these systems, as well as bounded-depth Frege systems, cannot polynomially simulate KS, by giving polynomial-size proofs of certain variants of the propositional pigeonhole principle in KS.Comment: 27 pages, 2 figures, full version of conference pape

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

De Morgan Dual Nominal Quantifiers Modelling Private Names in Non-Commutative Logic

This paper explores the proof theory necessary for recommending an expressive but decidable first-order system, named MAV1, featuring a de Morgan dual pair of nominal quantifiers. These nominal quantifiers called `new' and `wen' are distinct from the self-dual Gabbay-Pitts and Miller-Tiu nominal quantifiers. The novelty of these nominal quantifiers is they are polarised in the sense that `new' distributes over positive operators while `wen' distributes over negative operators. This greater control of bookkeeping enables private names to be modelled in processes embedded as formulae in MAV1. The technical challenge is to establish a cut elimination result, from which essential properties including the transitivity of implication follow. Since the system is defined using the calculus of structures, a generalisation of the sequent calculus, novel techniques are employed. The proof relies on an intricately designed multiset-based measure of the size of a proof, which is used to guide a normalisation technique called splitting. The presence of equivariance, which swaps successive quantifiers, induces complex inter-dependencies between nominal quantifiers, additive conjunction and multiplicative operators in the proof of splitting. Every rule is justified by an example demonstrating why the rule is necessary for soundly embedding processes and ensuring that cut elimination holds.Comment: Submitted for review 18/2/2016; accepted CONCUR 2016; extended version submitted to journal 27/11/201

Normalisation Control in Deep Inference via Atomic Flows

We introduce `atomic flows': they are graphs obtained from derivations by tracing atom occurrences and forgetting the logical structure. We study simple manipulations of atomic flows that correspond to complex reductions on derivations. This allows us to prove, for propositional logic, a new and very general normalisation theorem, which contains cut elimination as a special case. We operate in deep inference, which is more general than other syntactic paradigms, and where normalisation is more difficult to control. We argue that atomic flows are a significant technical advance for normalisation theory, because 1) the technique they support is largely independent of syntax; 2) indeed, it is largely independent of logical inference rules; 3) they constitute a powerful geometric formalism, which is more intuitive than syntax

Grafting Hypersequents onto Nested Sequents

We introduce a new Gentzen-style framework of grafted hypersequents that combines the formalism of nested sequents with that of hypersequents. To illustrate the potential of the framework, we present novel calculi for the modal logics $\mathsf{K5}$ and $\mathsf{KD5}$, as well as for extensions of the modal logics $\mathsf{K}$ and $\mathsf{KD}$ with the axiom for shift reflexivity. The latter of these extensions is also known as $\mathsf{SDL}^+$ in the context of deontic logic. All our calculi enjoy syntactic cut elimination and can be used in backwards proof search procedures of optimal complexity. The tableaufication of the calculi for $\mathsf{K5}$ and $\mathsf{KD5}$ yields simplified prefixed tableau calculi for these logic reminiscent of the simplified tableau system for $\mathsf{S5}$, which might be of independent interest

Cirquent calculus deepened

Cirquent calculus is a new proof-theoretic and semantic framework, whose main distinguishing feature is being based on circuits, as opposed to the more traditional approaches that deal with tree-like objects such as formulas or sequents. Among its advantages are greater efficiency, flexibility and expressiveness. This paper presents a detailed elaboration of a deep-inference cirquent logic, which is naturally and inherently resource conscious. It shows that classical logic, both syntactically and semantically, is just a special, conservative fragment of this more general and, in a sense, more basic logic -- the logic of resources in the form of cirquent calculus. The reader will find various arguments in favor of switching to the new framework, such as arguments showing the insufficiency of the expressive power of linear logic or other formula-based approaches to developing resource logics, exponential improvements over the traditional approaches in both representational and proof complexities offered by cirquent calculus, and more. Among the main purposes of this paper is to provide an introductory-style starting point for what, as the author wishes to hope, might have a chance to become a new line of research in proof theory -- a proof theory based on circuits instead of formulas.Comment: Significant improvements over the previous version