Private Names in Non-Commutative Logic

We present an expressive but decidable first-order system (named MAV1) defined by using the calculus of structures, a generalisation of the sequent calculus. In addition to first-order universal and existential quantifiers the system incorporates a de Morgan dual pair of nominal quantifiers called `new\u27 and `wen\u27, distinct from the self-dual Gabbay-Pitts and Miller-Tiu nominal quantifiers. The novelty of the operators `new\u27 and `wen\u27 is they are polarised in the sense that `new\u27 distributes over positive operators while `wen\u27 distributes over negative operators. This greater control of bookkeeping enables private names to be modelled in processes embedded as predicates in MAV1. Modelling processes as predicates in MAV1 has the advantage that linear implication defines a precongruence over processes that fully respects causality and branching. The transitivity of this precongruence is established by novel techniques for handling first-order quantifiers in the cut elimination proof

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

The Sub-Additives: A Proof Theory for Probabilistic Choice extending Linear Logic

Probabilistic choice, where each branch of a choice is weighted according to a probability distribution, is an established approach for modelling processes, quantifying uncertainty in the environment and other sources of randomness. This paper uncovers new insight showing probabilistic choice has a purely logical interpretation as an operator in an extension of linear logic. By forbidding projection and injection, we reveal additive operators between the standard with and plus operators of linear logic. We call these operators the sub-additives. The attention of the reader is drawn to two sub-additive operators: the first being sound with respect to probabilistic choice; while the second arises due to the fact that probabilistic choice cannot be self-dual, hence has a de Morgan dual counterpart. The proof theoretic justification for the sub-additives is a cut elimination result, employing a technique called decomposition. The justification from the perspective of modelling probabilistic concurrent processes is that implication is sound with respect to established notions of probabilistic refinement, and is fully compositional

BV and Pomset Logic Are Not the Same

BV and pomset logic are two logics that both conservatively extend unit-free multiplicative linear logic by a third binary connective, which (i) is non-commutative, (ii) is self-dual, and (iii) lies between the "par" and the "tensor". It was conjectured early on (more than 20 years ago), that these two logics, that share the same language, that both admit cut elimination, and whose connectives have essentially the same properties, are in fact the same. In this paper we show that this is not the case. We present a formula that is provable in pomset logic but not in BV

A Graphical Proof Theory of Logical Time

Logical time is a partial order over events in distributed systems, constraining which events precede others. Special interest has been given to series-parallel orders since they correspond to formulas constructed via the two operations for "series" and "parallel" composition. For this reason, series-parallel orders have received attention from proof theory, leading to pomset logic, the logic BV, and their extensions. However, logical time does not always form a series-parallel order; indeed, ubiquitous structures in distributed systems are beyond current proof theoretic methods. In this paper, we explore how this restriction can be lifted. We design new logics that work directly on graphs instead of formulas, we develop their proof theory, and we show that our logics are conservative extensions of the logic BV

An Analytic Propositional Proof System on Graphs

In this paper we present a proof system that operates on graphs instead of formulas. Starting from the well-known relationship between formulas and cographs, we drop the cograph-conditions and look at arbitrary undirected) graphs. This means that we lose the tree structure of the formulas corresponding to the cographs, and we can no longer use standard proof theoretical methods that depend on that tree structure. In order to overcome this difficulty, we use a modular decomposition of graphs and some techniques from deep inference where inference rules do not rely on the main connective of a formula. For our proof system we show the admissibility of cut and a generalization of the splitting property. Finally, we show that our system is a conservative extension of multiplicative linear logic with mix, and we argue that our graphs form a notion of generalized connective

A System of Interaction and Structure III: The Complexity of BV and Pomset Logic

Pomset logic and BV are both logics that extend multiplicative linear logic (with Mix) with a third connective that is self-dual and non-commutative. Whereas pomset logic originates from the study of coherence spaces and proof nets, BV originates from the study of series-parallel orders, cographs, and proof systems. Both logics enjoy a cut-admissibility result, but for neither logic can this be done in the sequent calculus. Provability in pomset logic can be checked via a proof net correctness criterion and in BV via a deep inference proof system. It has long been conjectured that these two logics are the same. In this paper we show that this conjecture is false. We also investigate the complexity of the two logics, exhibiting a huge gap between the two. Whereas provability in BV is NP-complete, provability in pomset logic is $\Sigma_2^p$-complete. We also make some observations with respect to possible sequent systems for the two logics

An Analytic Propositional Proof System on Graphs

In this paper we present a proof system that operates on graphs instead of formulas. Starting from the well-known relationship between formulas and cographs, we drop the cograph-conditions and look at arbitrary undirected) graphs. This means that we lose the tree structure of the formulas corresponding to the cographs, and we can no longer use standard proof theoretical methods that depend on that tree structure. In order to overcome this difficulty, we use a modular decomposition of graphs and some techniques from deep inference where inference rules do not rely on the main connective of a formula. For our proof system we show the admissibility of cut and a generalisation of the splitting property. Finally, we show that our system is a conservative extension of multiplicative linear logic with mix, and we argue that our graphs form a notion of generalised connective