Definite Formulae, Negation-as-Failure, and the Base-extension Semantics of Intuitionistic Propositional Logic

Proof-theoretic semantics (P-tS) is the paradigm of semantics in which meaning in logic is based on proof (as opposed to truth). A particular instance of P-tS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) is its base-extension semantics (B-eS). This semantics is given by a relation called support, explaining the meaning of the logical constants, which is parameterized by systems of rules called bases that provide the semantics of atomic propositions. In this paper, we interpret bases as collections of definite formulae and use the operational view of the latter as provided by uniform proof-search -- the proof-theoretic foundation of logic programming (LP) -- to establish the completeness of IPL for the B-eS. This perspective allows negation, a subtle issue in P-tS, to be understood in terms of the negation-as-failure protocol in LP. Specifically, while the denial of a proposition is traditionally understood as the assertion of its negation, in B-eS we may understand the denial of a proposition as the failure to find a proof of it. In this way, assertion and denial are both prime concepts in P-tS.Comment: submitte

Negation-as-Failure in the Base-extension Semantics for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic

Proof-theoretic semantics (P-tS) is the paradigm of semantics in which meaning in logic is based on proof (as opposed to truth). A particular instance of P-tS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) is its base-extension semantics (B-eS). This semantics is given by a relation called support, explaining the meaning of the logical constants, which is parameterized by systems of rules called bases that provide the semantics of atomic propositions. In this paper, we interpret bases as collections of definite formulae and use the operational view of them as provided by uniform proof-search—the proof-theoretic foundation of logic programming (LP)—to establish the completeness of IPL for the B-eS. This perspective allows negation, a subtle issue in P-tS, to be understood in terms of the negation-as-failure protocol in LP. Specifically, while the denial of a proposition is traditionally understood as the assertion of its negation, in B-eS we may understand the denial of a proposition as the failure to find a proof of it. In this way, assertion and denial are both prime concepts in P-tS

Type-driven natural language analysis

The purpose of this thesis is in showing how recent developments in logic programming can be exploited to encode in a computational environment the features of certain linguistic theories. We are in this way able to make available for the purpose of natural language processing sophisticated capabilities of linguistic analysis directly justified by well developed grammatical frameworks. More specifically, we exploit hypothetical reasoning, recently proposed as one of the possible directions to widen logic programming, to account for the syntax of filler-gap dependencies along the lines of linguistic theories such as Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar and Categorial Grammar. Moreover, we make use, for the purpose of semantic analysis of the same kind of phenomena, of another recently proposed extension, interestingly related to the previous one, namely the idea of replacing first-order terms with the more expressive λ-terms of λ-Calculus

Proof search issues in some non-classical logics

This thesis develops techniques and ideas on proof search. Proof search is used with one of two meanings. Proof search can be thought of either as the search for a yes/no answer to a query (theorem proving), or as the search for all proofs of a formula (proof enumeration). This thesis is an investigation into issues in proof search in both these senses for some non-classical logics. Gentzen systems are well suited for use in proof search in both senses. The rules of Gentzen sequent calculi are such that implementations can be directed by the top level syntax of sequents, unlike other logical calculi such as natural deduction. All the calculi for proof search in this thesis are Gentzen sequent calculi. In Chapter 2, permutation of inference rules for Intuitionistic Linear Logic is studied. A focusing calculus, ILLF, in the style of Andreoli ([And92]) is developed.This calculus allows only one proof in each equivalence class of proofs equivalent up to permutations of inferences. The issue here is both theorem proving and proof enumeration. For certain logics, normal natural deductions provide a proof-theoretic semantics. Proof enumeration is then the enumeration of all these deductions. Herbelin’s cutfree LJT ([Her95], here called MJ) is a Gentzen system for intuitionistic logic allowing derivations that correspond in a 1–1 way to the normal natural deductions of intuitionistic logic. This calculus is therefore well suited to proof enumeration. Such calculi are called ‘permutation-free’ calculi. In Chapter 3, MJ is extended to a calculus for an intuitionistic modal logic (due to Curry) called Lax Logic. We call this calculus PFLAX. The proof theory of MJ is extended to PFLAX. Chapter 4 presents work on theorem proving for propositional logics using a history mechanism for loop-checking. This mechanism is a refinement of one developed by Heuerding et al ([HSZ96]). It is applied to two calculi for intuitionistic logic and also to two modal logics: Lax Logic and intuitionistic S4. The calculi for intuitionistic logic are compared both theoretically and experimentally with other decision procedures for the logic. Chapter 5 is a short investigation of embedding intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic. A new embedding of intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic is given. For the hereditary Harrop fragment of intuitionistic logic, this embedding induces the calculus MJ for intuitionistic logic. In Chapter 6 a ‘permutation-free’ calculus is given for Intuitionistic Linear Logic. Again, its proof-theoretic properties are investigated. The calculus is proved to besound and complete with respect to a proof-theoretic semantics and (weak) cutelimination is proved. Logic programming can be thought of as proof enumeration in constructive logics. All the proof enumeration calculi in this thesis have been developed with logic programming in mind. We discuss at the appropriate points the relationship between the calculi developed here and logic programming. Appendix A contains presentations of the logical calculi used and Appendix B contains the sets of benchmark formulae used in Chapter

Proof Search Issues in Some Non-Classical Logics

This thesis develops techniques and ideas on proof search. Proof search is used with one of two meanings. Proof search can be thought of either as the search for a yes/no answer to a query (theorem proving), or as the search for all proofs of a formula (proof enumeration). This thesis is an investigation into issues in proof search in both these senses for some non-classical logics. Gentzen systems are well suited for use in proof search in both senses. The rules of Gentzen sequent calculi are such that implementations can be directed by the top level syntax of sequents, unlike other logical calculi such as natural deduction. All the calculi for proof search in this thesis are Gentzen sequent calculi. In Chapter 2, permutation of inference rules for Intuitionistic Linear Logic is studied. A focusing calculus, ILLF, in the style of Andreoli (citeandreoli-92) is developed. This calculus allows only one proof in each equivalence class of proofs equivalent up to permutations of inferences. The issue here is both theorem proving and proof enumeration. For certain logics, normal natural deductions provide a proof-theoretic semantics. Proof enumeration is then the enumeration of all these deductions. Herbelin's cut-free LJT (citeherb-95, here called MJ) is a Gentzen system for intuitionistic logic allowing derivations that correspond in a 1--1 way to the normal natural deductions of intuitionistic logic. This calculus is therefore well suited to proof enumeration. Such calculi are called `permutation-free' calculi. In Chapter 3, MJ is extended to a calculus for an intuitionistic modal logic (due to Curry) called Lax Logic. We call this calculus PFLAX. The proof theory of MJ is extended to PFLAX. Chapter 4 presents work on theorem proving for propositional logics using a history mechanism for loop-checking. This mechanism is a refinement of one developed by Heuerding emphet al (citeheu-sey-zim-96). It is applied to two calculi for intuitionistic logic and also to two modal logics: Lax Logic and intuitionistic S4. The calculi for intuitionistic logic are compared both theoretically and experimentally with other decision procedures for the logic. Chapter 5 is a short investigation of embedding intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic. A new embedding of intuitionistic logic in Intuitionistic Linear Logic is given. For the hereditary Harrop fragment of intuitionistic logic, this embedding induces the calculus MJ for intuitionistic logic. In Chapter 6 a `permutation-free' calculus is given for Intuitionistic Linear Logic. Again, its proof-theoretic properties are investigated. The calculus is proved to be sound and complete with respect to a proof-theoretic semantics and (weak) cut-elimination is proved. Logic programming can be thought of as proof enumeration in constructive logics. All the proof enumeration calculi in this thesis have been developed with logic programming in mind. We discuss at the appropriate points the relationship between the calculi developed here and logic programming. Appendix A contains presentations of the logical calculi used and Appendix B contains the sets of benchmark formulae used in Chapter 4

Programming with Bunched Implications

Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosophyWe give an operational semantics for the logic programming language BLP, based on the hereditary Harrop fragment of the logic of bunched implications, BI. We introduce BI, explaining the account of the sharing of resources built into its semantics, and indicate how it may be used to give a logic programming language. We explain that the basic input/output model of operational semantics, used in linear logic programming, will not work for bunched logic. We show how to obtain a complete, goal-directed proof theory for hereditary Harrop BI and how to reformulate the operational model to account for the interaction between multiplicative and additive structure. We give examples of how the resulting programming language handles sharing and non-sharing use of resources purely logically and contrast them with Prolog. We describe the use of modules and their applications and discuss the possibilities offered in this context by multiplicative quanti ers. We provide a denotational semantics based on the construction of a least xed point of Herbrand interpretations. Finally we provide an annotated implementation of the operational semantics using the continuation-passing style (CPS)

Implementing Theorem Provers in Logic Programming

Logic programming languages have many characteristics that indicate that they should serve as good implementation languages for theorem provers. For example, they are based on search and unification which are also fundamental to theorem proving. We show how an extended logic programming language can be used to implement theorem provers and other aspects of proof systems for a variety of logics. In this language first-order terms are replaced with simply-typed λ-terms, and thus unification becomes higher-order unification. Also, implication and universal quantification are allowed in goals. We illustrate that inference rules can be very naturally specified, and that the primitive search operations of this language correspond to those needed for searching for proofs. We argue on several levels that this extended logic programming language provides a very suitable environment for implementing tactic style theorem provers. Such theorem provers provide extensive capabilities for integrating techniques for automated theorem proving into an interactive proof environment. We are also concerned with representing proofs as objects. We illustrate how such objects can be constructed and manipulated in the logic programming setting. Finally, we propose extensions to tactic style theorem provers in working toward the goal of developing an interactive theorem proving environment that provides a user with many tools and techniques for building and manipulating proofs, and that integrates sophisticated capabilities for automated proof discovery. Many of the theorem provers we present have been implemented in the higher-order logic programming language λProlog

Proceedings of the Workshop on the lambda-Prolog Programming Language

The expressiveness of logic programs can be greatly increased over first-order Horn clauses through a stronger emphasis on logical connectives and by admitting various forms of higher-order quantification. The logic of hereditary Harrop formulas and the notion of uniform proof have been developed to provide a foundation for more expressive logic programming languages. The λ-Prolog language is actively being developed on top of these foundational considerations. The rich logical foundations of λ-Prolog provides it with declarative approaches to modular programming, hypothetical reasoning, higher-order programming, polymorphic typing, and meta-programming. These aspects of λ-Prolog have made it valuable as a higher-level language for the specification and implementation of programs in numerous areas, including natural language, automated reasoning, program transformation, and databases