Complete Sequent Calculi for Induction and Infinite Descent

This paper formalises and compares two different styles of reasoning with inductively defined predicates, each style being encapsulated by a corresponding sequent calculus proof system. The first system, LKID, supports traditional proof by induction, with induction rules formulated as rules for introducing inductively defined predicates on the left of sequents. We show LKID to be cut-free complete with respect to a natural class of Henkin models; the eliminability of cut follows as a corollary. The second system, LKID ω, uses infinite (non-well-founded) proofs to represent arguments by infinite descent. In this system, the left-introduction rules for inductively defined predicates are simple case-split rules, and an infinitary, global condition on proof trees is required in order to ensure soundness. We show LKID ω to be cut-free complete with respect to standard models, and again infer the eliminability of cut. The infinitary system LKID ω is unsuitable for formal reasoning. However, it has a natural restriction to proofs given by regular trees, i.e. to those proofs representable by finite graphs, which is so suited. We demonstrate that this restricted “cyclic ” proof system, CLKID ω, subsumes LKID, and conjecture that CLKID ω and LKID are in fact equivalent, i.e., that proof by induction is equivalent to regular proof by infinite descent.

Towards Theory of Massive-Parallel Proofs. Cellular Automata Approach

In the paper I sketch a theory of massively parallel proofs using cellular automata presentation of deduction. In this presentation inference rules play the role of cellular-automatic local transition functions. In this approach we completely avoid axioms as necessary notion of deduction theory and therefore we can use cyclic proofs without additional problems. As a result, a theory of massive-parallel proofs within unconventional computing is proposed for the first time.Comment: 13 page

E-Cyclist: Implementation of an Efficient Validation of FOL ID Cyclic Induction Reasoning (System Description)

Checking the soundness of cyclic induction reasoning for first-order logic with inductive definitions (FOLID) is decidable but the standard checking method is based on an exponential complement operation for Büchi automata. Recently, we introduced a polynomial checking method whose most expensive steps recall the comparisons done with multiset path orderings. We describe the implementation of our method in the Cyclist prover. Referred to as E-Cyclist, it successfully checked all the proofs included in the original distribution of Cyclist. Heuristics have been devised to automatically define from the analysis of the proof derivations the ordering measures that satisfy the ordering constraints. FOLID cyclic proof derivations may also be hard to certify. E-Cyclist witnesses a strong relation between the two cyclic and well-founded induction reasonings. This opens the perspective of using the known certification methods that work for well-founded induction proofs

Infinets: The parallel syntax for non-wellfounded proof-theory

Logics based on the µ-calculus are used to model induc-tive and coinductive reasoning and to verify reactive systems. A well-structured proof-theory is needed in order to apply such logics to the study of programming languages with (co)inductive data types and automated (co)inductive theorem proving. While traditional proof system suffers some defects, non-wellfounded (or infinitary) and circular proofs have been recognized as a valuable alternative, and significant progress have been made in this direction in recent years. Such proofs are non-wellfounded sequent derivations together with a global validity condition expressed in terms of progressing threads. The present paper investigates a discrepancy found in such proof systems , between the sequential nature of sequent proofs and the parallel structure of threads: various proof attempts may have the exact threading structure while differing in the order of inference rules applications. The paper introduces infinets, that are proof-nets for non-wellfounded proofs in the setting of multiplicative linear logic with least and greatest fixed-points (µMLL ∞) and study their correctness and sequentialization. Inductive and coinductive reasoning is pervasive in computer science to specify and reason about infinite data as well as reactive properties. Developing appropriate proof systems amenable to automated reasoning over (co)inductive statements is therefore important for designing programs as well as for analyzing computational systems. Various logical settings have been introduced to reason about such inductive and coinductive statements, both at the level of the logical languages modelling (co)induction (such as Martin Löf's inductive predicates or fixed-point logics, also known as µ-calculi) and at the level of the proof-theoretical framework considered (finite proofs with explicit (co)induction rulesà la Park [23] or infinite, non-wellfounded proofs with fixed-point unfold-ings) [6-8, 4, 1, 2]. Moreover, such proof systems have been considered over classical logic [6, 8], intuitionistic logic [9], linear-time or branching-time temporal logic [19, 18, 25, 26, 13-15] or linear logic [24, 16, 4, 3, 14]

Integrating a Global Induction Mechanism into a Sequent Calculus

Most interesting proofs in mathematics contain an inductive argument which requires an extension of the LK-calculus to formalize. The most commonly used calculi for induction contain a separate rule or axiom which reduces the valid proof theoretic properties of the calculus. To the best of our knowledge, there are no such calculi which allow cut-elimination to a normal form with the subformula property, i.e. every formula occurring in the proof is a subformula of the end sequent. Proof schemata are a variant of LK-proofs able to simulate induction by linking proofs together. There exists a schematic normal form which has comparable proof theoretic behaviour to normal forms with the subformula property. However, a calculus for the construction of proof schemata does not exist. In this paper, we introduce a calculus for proof schemata and prove soundness and completeness with respect to a fragment of the inductive arguments formalizable in Peano arithmetic.Comment: 16 page

The Lambek calculus with iteration: two variants

Formulae of the Lambek calculus are constructed using three binary connectives, multiplication and two divisions. We extend it using a unary connective, positive Kleene iteration. For this new operation, following its natural interpretation, we present two lines of calculi. The first one is a fragment of infinitary action logic and includes an omega-rule for introducing iteration to the antecedent. We also consider a version with infinite (but finitely branching) derivations and prove equivalence of these two versions. In Kleene algebras, this line of calculi corresponds to the *-continuous case. For the second line, we restrict our infinite derivations to cyclic (regular) ones. We show that this system is equivalent to a variant of action logic that corresponds to general residuated Kleene algebras, not necessarily *-continuous. Finally, we show that, in contrast with the case without division operations (considered by Kozen), the first system is strictly stronger than the second one. To prove this, we use a complexity argument. Namely, we show, using methods of Buszkowski and Palka, that the first system is $\Pi_1^0$-hard, and therefore is not recursively enumerable and cannot be described by a calculus with finite derivations

Representations of stream processors using nested fixed points

We define representations of continuous functions on infinite streams of discrete values, both in the case of discrete-valued functions, and in the case of stream-valued functions. We define also an operation on the representations of two continuous functions between streams that yields a representation of their composite. In the case of discrete-valued functions, the representatives are well-founded (finite-path) trees of a certain kind. The underlying idea can be traced back to Brouwer's justification of bar-induction, or to Kreisel and Troelstra's elimination of choice-sequences. In the case of stream-valued functions, the representatives are non-wellfounded trees pieced together in a coinductive fashion from well-founded trees. The definition requires an alternating fixpoint construction of some ubiquity

Infinets: The parallel syntax for non-wellfounded proof-theory

International audienceLogics based on the µ-calculus are used to model inductive and coinductive reasoning and to verify reactive systems. A well-structured proof-theory is needed in order to apply such logics to the study of programming languages with (co)inductive data types and automated (co)inductive theorem proving. While traditional proof system suffers some defects, non-wellfounded (or infinitary) and circular proofs have been recognized as a valuable alternative, and significant progress have been made in this direction in recent years. Such proofs are non-wellfounded sequent derivations together with a global validity condition expressed in terms of progressing threads. The present paper investigates a discrepancy found in such proof systems , between the sequential nature of sequent proofs and the parallel structure of threads: various proof attempts may have the exact threading structure while differing in the order of inference rules applications. The paper introduces infinets, that are proof-nets for non-wellfounded proofs in the setting of multiplicative linear logic with least and greatest fixed-points (µMLL ∞) and study their correctness and sequentialization