Computability logic: Giving Caesar what belongs to Caesar

Intuitionistic logic encompasses the principles of reasoning which were used by L. Brouwer in developing his intuitionistic mathematics, beginning in [Bro07]. Intuitionistic logic can be succinctly described as classical logic without the law ϕ ∨ ¬ϕ of excluded middle. Brouwer observed that this law was abstracted from finite situations and its application to statements about infinite collections is not justified. One of the consequences of the rejection of the law of excluded middle is that every intuitionistic proof of an existential sentence can be effectively transformed into an intuitionistic proof of an instance of that sentence. More precisely, if a formula of the form ∃xϕ(x) without free variables is provable in the intuitionistic predicate logic, then there is a term t without free variables such that ϕ(t) is provable. In particular, if ϕ ∨ ψ is provable, then either ϕ or ψ is provable. In that sense intuitionistic logic may provide a logical basis for constructive reasoning. A formal system of intuitionistic logic was proposed in [Hey30]. A relationship between the classical propositional logic PC and intuitionistic propositional logic INT was proved by Glivenko in [Gli29], namely a PC-formula ϕ is PC-provable if and only if ¬ ¬ϕ is INT-provable. Kripke semantics for intuitionistic logic was developed in [Kri65].

Full classical S5 in natural deduction with weak normalization

Prawitz suggested expanding a natural deduction system for intuitionistic logic to include rules for classical logic constructors, allowing both intuitionistic and classical elements to coexist without losing their inherent characteristics. Looking at the added rules from the point of view of the Gödel-Gentzen translation, led us to propose a general method for the coexistent combination of two logics when a conservative translation exists from one logic (the source) to another (the host). Then we prove that the combined logic is a conservative extension of the original logics, thereby preserving the unique characteristics of each component logic. In this way there is no collapse of one logic into the other in the combination. We also demonstrate that a Gentzen calculus for the combined logic can be induced from a Gentzen calculus for the host logic by considering the translation. This approach applies to semantics as well. We then establish a general sufficient condition for ensuring that the combined logic is both sound and complete. We apply these principles by combining classical and intuitionistic logics capitalizing on the Gödel-Gentzen conservative translation, intuitionistic and S4 modal logics relying on the Gödel-McKinsey-Tarski conservative translation, and classical and Jaśkowski’s paraconsistent logics taking into account the existence of a conservative translation.

Recent development of logic programming languages based on linear logic suggests a successful direction to extend logic programming to be more expressive and more efficient. The treatment of formulasas-resources gives us not only powerful expressiveness, but also efficient access to a large set of data. However, in linear logic, whole resources are kept in one context, and there is no straight way to represent complex data structures as resources. For example, in order to represent an ordered list and time-dependent data, we need to put additional indices for each resource formula. This paper describes a logic programming language, called TLLP, based on intuitionistic temporal linear logic. This logic, an extension of linear logic with some features from temporal logics, allows the use of the modal operators '?'(next-time) and '?'(always) in addition to the operators used in intuitionistic linear logic. The intuitive meaning of modal operators is as follows: ? B means that B can be used exactly once at the next moment in time; ? B means that B can be used exactly once any time; !B means that B can be used arbitrarily many times (including 0 times) at any time. We first give a proof theoretic formulation of the logic of the TLLP language. We then present a series of resource management systems designed to implement not only interpreters but also compilers based on an extension of the standard WAM model.

We present three different functional interpretations of intuitionistic linear logic ILL and show how these correspond to well-known functional interpretations of intuitionistic logic IL via embeddings of IL into ILL. The main difference from previous work of the second author is that in intuitionistic linear logic (as opposed to classical linear logic) the interpretations of !A are simpler and simultaneous quantifiers are no longer needed for the characterisation of the interpretations. We then compare our approach in developing these three proof interpretations with the one of de Paiva around the Dialectica category model of linear logic.

This article aims to generate all theorems of a given size in the implicational fragment of propositional intuitionistic linear logic. It was presented at the 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP).

Nonstandard Reasoning

Classical logic is symmetric with respect to True and False but intuitionistic logic is not. We introduce and study a conservative extension of first-order intuitionistic logic that is symmetric with respect to True and False.

With help of a compact Prolog-based theorem prover for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic, we synthesize minimal assumptions under which a given formula formula becomes a theorem. After applying our synthesis algorithm to cover basic abductive reasoning mechanisms, we synthesize conjunctions of literals that mimic rows of truth tables in classical or intermediate logics and we abduce conditional hypotheses that turn the theorems of classical or intermediate logics into theorems in intuitionistic logic. One step further, we generalize our abductive reasoning mechanism to synthesize more expressive sequent premises using a minimal set of canonical formulas, to which arbitrary formulas in the calculus can be reduced while preserving their provability. Organized as a self-contained literate Prolog program, the paper supports interactive exploration of its content and ensures full replicability of our results.

Security protocols: from linear to classical logic by abstract interpretation

General and effective methods are required for providing good automation strategies to prove properties of sequent systems. Structural properties such as admissibility, invertibility, and permutability of rules are crucial in proof theory, and they can be used for proving other key properties such as cut-elimination. However, finding proofs for these properties requires inductive reasoning over the provability relation, which is often quite elaborated, exponentially exhaustive, and error prone. This paper aims at developing automatic techniques for proving structural properties of sequent systems. The proposed techniques are presented in the rewriting logic metalogical framework, and use rewrite- and narrowing-based reasoning. They have been fully mechanized in Maude and achieve a great degree of automation when used on several sequent systems, including intuitionistic and classical logics, linear logic, and normal modal logics.

We discuss the interpolation property on some important families of non classical logics, such as intuitionistic, modal, fuzzy, and linear logics. A special paragraph is devoted to a generalization of the interpolation property, uniform interpolation.

This paper tackles the problem of formulating and proving the completeness of\nfocused-like proof systems in an automated fashion. Focusing is a discipline on\nproofs which structures them into phases in order to reduce proof search\nnon-determinism. We demonstrate that it is possible to construct a complete\nfocused proof system from a given un-focused proof system if it satisfies some\nconditions. Our key idea is to generalize the completeness proof based on\npermutation lemmas given by Miller and Saurin for the focused linear logic\nproof system. This is done by building a graph from the rule permutation\nrelation of a proof system, called permutation graph. We then show that from\nthe permutation graph of a given proof system, it is possible to construct a\ncomplete focused proof system, and additionally infer for which formulas\ncontraction is admissible. An implementation for building the permutation graph\nof a system is provided. We apply our technique to generate the focused proof\nsystems MALLF, LJF and LKF for linear, intuitionistic and classical logics,\nrespectively.\n

This handbook provides a systematic survey of the central areas of philosophical logic. It is divided into four volumes, each devoted to a major sub-field within the disciplines. The articles should be of value to general philosophers, linguists, logicians, mathematicians and computer scientists. Volume 1, Elements of Classical Logic, deals with the background to what has come to be considered the standard formulation of predicate logic - both as far as its semantics and proof theory are concerned. The central chapter on predicate logic is followed by chapters outlining various alternative, but essentially equivalent ways of constructing the semantics for first-order logic as well as its proof theory. In addition, this volume contains a discussion of higher-order extensions of first-order logic and a compendium of the algorithmic and decision-theoretic prerequisites in the study of logical systems. Volume 2, Extensions of Classical Logic, surveys the most significant extensions of predicate logic and their applications to various philosophical fields of inquiry. The 12 chapters in this volume together provide a succinct introduction to a variety of intensional frameworks, a discussion of the most well-known logical systems, as well as an overview of major applications and of the open problems in the respective fields. Volume 3, Alternatives to Classical Logic, consists of a series of surveys of some of the alternatives to the basic assumptions of classical logic. These include many-valued logic, partial logic, free logic, relevance and entailment logics, dialogue logic, quantum logic and intuitionism. Volume 4, Topics in the Philosophy of Language, presents a panorama of the applications of logical tools and methods in the formal analysis of natural language. Since a number of developments in philosophical logic were originally stimulated by concern arising in the semantic analysis of natural language discourse, the chapters in this volume provide some criteria of evaluation of the applications of work in philosophical logic. In revealing both the adequacies and inadequacies of logical investigations in the semantic structures of natural discourse, these chapters also point the way to future developments in philosophical logic in general and thus close again the circle of inquiry relating logic and language.

1.1 Relationship between Petri net and linear logic Petri nets were first introduced by Petri in his seminal Ph.D. thesis, and both the theory and the applications of his model have flourished in concurrency theory (Reisig & Rozenberg, 1998a; Reisig & Rozenberg, 1998b). The relationships between Petri nets and linear logics have been studied by many researchers (Engberg & Winskel, 1997; Farwer, 1999; Hirai, 2000; Hirai 1999; Ishihara & Hiraish, 2001; Kamide, 2004, Kamide, 2006; Kanovich, 1995; Kanovich 1994; LarcheyWendling & Galmiche, 1998; Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 2000; Lilius, 1992; Mart -Oliet & Meseguer, 1991; Okada, 1998; Tanabe, 1997). A category theoretical investigation of such a relationship was given by Mart -Oliet and Meseguer (Mart -Oliet & Meseguer, 1991), purely syntactical approach using Horn linear logic was established by Kanovich (Kanovich, 1995; Kanovich 1994), a naive phase linear logic for a certain class of Petri nets was given by Okada (Okada, 1998), a linear logical view of object Petri nets were studied by Farwer (Farwer, 1999), and various Petri net interpretations of linear logic using quantale models were obtained by Ishihara and Hiraishi (Ishihara & Hiraish, 2001), Engberg and Winskel (Engberg & Winskel, 1997), Larchey-Wendling and Galmiche (Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 1998; Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 2000), and Lilius (Lilius, 1992). Petri net interpretations using Kripke semantics for various fragments and extensions of intuitionistic linear logic were studied by Kamide (Kamide, 2004; Kamide, 2006c). In (Kamide, 2004), Petri net interpretations of various fragments of a spatio-temporal soft linear logic were discussed. In (Kamide, 2006c), Petri nets with inhibitor arcs, which were first introduced by Kosaraju (Kosaraju, 1973) to show the limitation of the usual Petri nets, were described using Kripke semantics for intuitionistic linear logic with strong negation. The approarches using Kripke semantics can obtain a very simple correspondence between Petri net and linear logic.