Constructive Decision via Redundancy-Free Proof-Search

International audienceWe give a constructive account of Kripke-Curry's method which was used to establish the decidability of Implicational Relevance Logic (R →). To sustain our approach, we mechanize this method in axiom-free Coq, abstracting away from the specific features of R → to keep only the essential ingredients of the technique. In particular we show how to replace Kripke/Dickson's lemma by a constructive form of Ramsey's theorem based on the notion of almost full relation. We also explain how to replace König's lemma with an inductive form of Brouwer's Fan theorem. We instantiate our abstract proof to get a constructive decision procedure for R → and discuss potential applications to other logical decidability problems

Recent Work in Relevant Logic

This paper surveys important work done in relevant logic in the past 10 years

The decidability of a fragment of BB′IW-logic

AbstractDespite its simple formulation, the decidability of the logic BB′IW has remained an open problem. We present here a decision procedure for a fragment of it, called the arity-1 formulas.The decidability proof is based on a representation of formulas called formula-trees, which is coupled with a proof method that computes long normal λ-terms that inhabit a formula.A rewriting-system is associated with such λ-terms, and we show that a formula admits a BB′IW-λ-term if and only if the associated rewriting-system terminates. The fact that termination is decidable is proved using a result on the finiteness of non-ascending sequences of n-tuples in Nn, which is equivalent to Kripke's Lemma

Decidability and Complexity in Weakening and Contraction Hypersequent Substructural Logics

We establish decidability for the infinitely many axiomatic extensions of the commutative Full Lambek logic with weakening FLew (i.e. IMALLW) that have a cut-free hypersequent proof calculus. Specifically: every analytic structural rule exten- sion of HFLew. Decidability for the corresponding extensions of its contraction counterpart FLec was established recently but their computational complexity was left unanswered. In the second part of this paper, we introduce just enough on length functions for well-quasi-orderings and the fast-growing complexity classes to obtain complexity upper bounds for both the weakening and contraction extensions. A specific instance of this result yields the first complexity bound for the prominent fuzzy logic MTL (monoidal t-norm based logic) providing an answer to a long- standing open problem

Investigations in Belnap's Logic of Inconsistent and Unknown Information

Nuel Belnap schlug 1977 eine vierwertige Logik vor, die -- im Gegensatz zur klassischen Logik -- die Faehigkeit haben sollte, sowohl mit widerspruechlicher als auch mit fehlender Information umzugehen. Diese Logik hat jedoch den Nachteil, dass sie Saetze der Form 'wenn ..., dann ...' nicht ausdruecken kann. Ausgehend von dieser Beobachtung analysieren wir die beiden nichtklassischen Aspekte, Widerspruechlichkeit und fehlende Information, indem wir eine dreiwertige Logik entwickeln, die mit widerspruechlicher Information umgehen kann und eine Modallogik, die mit fehlender Information umgehen kann. Beide Logiken sind nicht monoton. Wir untersuchen Eigenschaften, wie z.B. Kompaktheit, Entscheidbarkeit, Deduktionstheoreme und Berechnungkomplexitaet dieser Logiken. Es stellt sich heraus, dass die dreiwertige Logik, nicht kompakt und ihre Folgerungsmenge im Allgemeinen nicht rekursiv aufzaehlbar ist. Beschraenkt man sich hingegen auf endliche Formelmengen, so ist die Folgerungsmenge rekursiv entscheidbar, liegt in der Klasse $\Sigma_2^P$ der polynomiellen Zeithierarchie und ist DIFFP-schwer. Wir geben ein auf semantischen Tableaux basierendes, korrektes und vollstaendiges Berechnungsverfahren fuer endliche Praemissenmengen an. Darueberhinaus untersuchen wir Abschwaechungen der Kompaktheitseigenschaft. Die nichtmonotone auf S5-Modellen basierende Modallogik stellt sich als nicht minder komplex heraus. Auch hier untersuchen wir eine sinnvolle Abschwaechung der Kompaktheitseigenschaft. Desweiteren studieren wir den Zusammenhang zu anderen nichtmonotonen Modallogiken wie Moores autoepistemischer Logik (AEL) und McDermotts NML-2. Wir zeigen, dass unsere Logik zwischen AEL und NML-2 liegt. Schliesslich koppeln wir die entworfene Modallogik mit der dreiwertigen Logik. Die dabei enstehende Logik MKT ist eine Erweiterung des nichtmonotonen Fragments von Belnaps Logik. Wir schliessen unsere Betrachtungen mit einem Vergleich von MKT und verschiedenen informationstheoretischen Logiken, wie z.B. Nelsons N und Heytings intuitionistischer Logik ab

HOL Metatheory of Relevant Implication Syntax and Semantics

We mechanise two Hilbert systems, a Natural Deduction system, the Routley-Meyer semantics, and the Cover semantics for the Relevant Logic R in HOL4. We also show equivalence results between one of the Hilbert Systems and the other Hilbert system and the Natural Deduction system. We also show soundness and completeness results between the one of the Hilbert Systems and the two Semantic systems, thereby producing machine checked proofs of all of these results

Goal-directed proof theory

This report is the draft of a book about goal directed proof theoretical formulations of non-classical logics. It evolved from a response to the existence of two camps in the applied logic (computer science/artificial intelligence) community. There are those members who believe that the new non-classical logics are the most important ones for applications and that classical logic itself is now no longer the main workhorse of applied logic, and there are those who maintain that classical logic is the only logic worth considering and that within classical logic the Horn clause fragment is the most important one. The book presents a uniform Prolog-like formulation of the landscape of classical and non-classical logics, done in such away that the distinctions and movements from one logic to another seem simple and natural; and within it classical logic becomes just one among many. This should please the non-classical logic camp. It will also please the classical logic camp since the goal directed formulation makes it all look like an algorithmic extension of Logic Programming. The approach also seems to provide very good compuational complexity bounds across its landscape

LDS - Labelled Deductive Systems: Volume 1 - Foundations

Traditional logics manipulate formulas. The message of this book is to manipulate pairs; formulas and labels. The labels annotate the formulas. This sounds very simple but it turned out to be a big step, which makes a serious difference, like the difference between using one hand only or allowing for the coordinated use of two hands. Of course the idea has to be made precise, and its advantages and limitations clearly demonstrated. `Precise' means a good mathematical definition and `advantages demonstrated' means case studies and applications in pure logic and in AI. To achieve that we need to address the following: \begin{enumerate} \item Define the notion of {\em LDS}, its proof theory and semantics and relate it to traditional logics. \item Explain what form the traditional concepts of cut elimination, deduction theorem, negation, inconsistency, update, etc.\ take in {\em LDS}. \item Formulate major known logics in {\em LDS}. For example, modal and temporal logics, substructural logics, default, nonmonotonic logics, etc. \item Show new results and solve long-standing problems using {\em LDS}. \item Demonstrate practical applications. \end{enumerate} This is what I am trying to do in this book. Part I of the book is an intuitive presentation of {\em LDS} in the context of traditional current views of monotonic and nonmonotonic logics. It is less oriented towards the pure logician and more towards the practical consumer of logic. It has two tasks, addressed in two chapters. These are: \begin{itemlist}{Chapter 1:} \item [Chapter1:] Formally motivate {\em LDS} by starting from the traditional notion of `What is a logical system' and slowly adding features to it until it becomes essentially an {\em LDS}. \item [Chapter 2:] Intuitively motivate {\em LDS} by showing many examples where labels are used, as well as some case studies of familiar logics (e.g.\ modal logic) formulated as an {\em LDS}. \end{itemlist} The second part of the book presents the formal theory of {\em LDS} for the formal logician. I have tried to avoid the style of definition-lemma-theorem and put in some explanations. What is basically needed here is the formulation of the mathematical machinery capable of doing the following. \begin{itemize} \item Define {\em LDS} algebra, proof theory and semantics. \item Show how an arbitrary (or fairly general) logic, presented traditionally, say as a Hilbert system or as a Gentzen system, can be turned into an {\em LDS} formulation. \item Show how to obtain a traditional formulations (e.g.\ Hilbert) for an arbitrary {\em LDS} presented logic. \item Define and study major logical concepts intrinsic to {\em LDS} formalisms. \item Give detailed study of the {\em LDS} formulation of some major known logics (e.g.\ modal logics, resource logics) and demonstrate its advantages. \item Translate {\em LDS} into classical logic (reduce the `new' to the `old'), and explain {\em LDS} in the context of classical logic (two sorted logic, metalevel aspects, etc). \end{itemize} \begin{itemlist}{Chapter 1:} \item [Chapter 3:] Give fairly general definitions of some basic concepts of {\em LDS} theory, mainly to cater for the needs of the practical consumer of logic who may wish to apply it, with a detailed study of the metabox system. The presentation of Chapter 3 is a bit tricky. It may be too formal for the intuitive reader, but not sufficiently clear and elegant for the mathematical logician. I would be very grateful for comments from the readers for the next draft. \item [Chapter 4:] Presents the basic notions of algebraic {\em LDS}. The reader may wonder how come we introduce algebraic {\em LDS} in chapter 3 and then again in chapter 4. Our aim in chapter 3 is to give a general definition and formal machinery for the applied consumer of logic. Chapter 4 on the other hand studies {\em LDS} as formal logics. It turns out that to formulate an arbitrary logic as an {\em LDS} one needs some specific labelling algebras and these need to be studied in detail (chapter 4). For general applications it is more convenient to have general labelling algebras and possibly mathematically redundant formulations (chapter 3). In a sense chapter 4 continues the topic of the second section of chapter 3. \item [Chapter 5:] Present the full theory of {\em LDS} where labels can be databases from possibly another {\em LDS}. It also presents Fibred Semantics for {\em LDS}. \item [Chapter 6:] Presents a theory of quantifers for {\em LDS}. The material for this chapter is still under research. \item [Chapter 7:] Studies structured consequence relations. These are logical system swhere the structure is not described through labels but through some geometry like lists, multisets, trees, etc. Thus the label of a wff $A$ is implicit, given by the place of $A$ in the structure. \item [Chapter 8:] Deals with metalevel features of {\em LDS} and its translation into two sorted classical logic. \end{itemlist} Parts 3 and 4 of the book deals in detail with some specific families of logics. Chapters 9--11 essentailly deal with substructural logics and their variants. \begin{itemlist}{Chapter10:} \item [Chapter 9:] Studies resource and substructural logics in general. \item [Chapter 10:] Develops detailed proof theory for some systems as well as studying particular features such as negation. \item [Chapter 11:] Deals with many valued logics. \item [Chapter 12:] Studies the Curry Howard formula as type view and how it compres with labelling. \item [Chapter 13:] Deals with modal and temporal logics. \end{itemlist} Part 5 of the book deals with {\em LDS} metatheory. \begin{itemlist}{Chapter15:} \item [Chapter 14:] Deals with labelled tableaux. \item [Chapter 15:] Deals with combining logics. \item [Chapter 16:] Deals with abduction. \end{itemlist