Cut-Elimination for Full Intuitionistic Linear Logic

In this paper we describe a solution to the problem of proving cut-elimination for FILL, a variant of exponential-free and multiplicative Linear Logic originally introduced by Hyland and de Paiva. In the work of Hyland and de Paiva, a term assignment system is used to describe the intuitionistic character of FILL and a proof of cut-elimination is barely sketched. In the present paper, as well as correcting a small mistake in their work and extending the system to deal with exponentals, we introduce a different formal system describing the intuitionistic character of FILL and we provide a full proof of the cut-elimination theorem. The formal system is based on a dependency-relation between formulae occurrences within a given proof and seems of independent interest. The procedure for cut-elimination applies to (multiplicative and exponential) Classical Linear Logic, and we can (with care) restrict our attention to the subsystem FILL. The proof, as usual with cut-elimination proofs, is a little involved and we have not seen it published anywhere.

A cornerstone of the theory of proof nets for unit-free multiplicative linear logic (MLL) is the abstract representation of cut-free proofs modulo inessential rule commutation. The only known extension to additives, based on monomial weights, fails to preserve this key feature: a host of cut-free monomial proof nets can correspond to the same cut-free proof. Thus, the problem of finding a satisfactory notion of proof net for unit-free multiplicative-additive linear logic (MALL) has remained open since the inception of linear logic in 1986. We present a new definition of MALL proof net which remains faithful to the cornerstone of the MLL theory.

Constant-only multiplicative linear logic is NP-complete

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).

Probably the most significant result concerning cut-free sequent calculus proofs in linear logic is the completeness of focused proofs. This completeness theorem has a number of proof theoretic applications — e.g. in game semantics, Ludics, and proof search — and more computer science applications — e.g. logic programming, call-by-name/value evaluation. Andreoli proved this theorem for first-order linear logic 15 years ago. In the present paper, we give a new proof of the completeness of focused proofs in terms of proof transformation. The proof of this theorem is simple and modular: it is first proved for MALL and then is extended to full linear logic. Given its modular structure, we show how the proof can be extended to larger systems, such as logics with induction. Our analysis of focused proofs will employ a proof transformation method that leads us to study how focusing and cut elimination interact. A key component of our proof is the construction of a focalization graph which provides an abstraction over how focusing can be organized within a given cut-free proof. Using this graph abstraction allows us to provide a detailed study of atomic bias assignment in a way more refined that is given in Andreoli’s original proof. Permitting more flexible assignment of bias will allow this completeness theorem to help establish the completeness of a number of other automated deduction procedures. Focalization graphs can be used to justify the introduction of an inference rule for multifocus derivation: a rule that should help us better understand the relations between sequentiality and concurrency in linear logic.

Temporal BI: Proof system, semantics and translations

We propose a notion of symmetric reduction for a system of proof-nets for Multiplicative Affine Logic with Mix (MAL + Mix) (namely, multiplicative linear logic with the mix-rule the unrestricted weakening-rule). We prove that such a reduction has the strong normalization and Church-Rosser properties. A notion of irrelevance in a proof-net is defined and the possibility of cancelling the irrelevant parts of a proof-net without erasing the entire net is taken as one of the correctness conditions; therefore purely local cut-reductions are given, minimizing cancellation and suggesting a paradigm of computation without garbage collection. Reconsidering Ketonen and Weyhranch's decision procedure for affine logic [15, 4], the use of the mix-rule is related to the non-determinism of classical proof-theory. The question arises, whether these features of classical cut-elimination are really irreducible to the familiar paradigm of cut-elimination for intuitionistic and linear logic.

Pomset logic introduced by Retor\'e is an extension of linear logic with a self-dual noncommutative connective. The logic is defined by means of proof-nets, rather than a sequent calculus. Later a deep inference system BV was developed with an eye to capturing Pomset logic, but equivalence of system has not been proven up to now. As for a sequent calculus formulation, it has not been known for either of these logics, and there are convincing arguments that such a sequent calculus in the usual sense simply does not exist for them. In an on-going work on semantics we discovered a system similar to Pomset logic, where a noncommutative connective is no longer self-dual. Pomset logic appears as a degeneration, when the class of models is restricted. Motivated by these semantic considerations, we define in the current work a semicommutative multiplicative linear logic}, which is multiplicative linear logic extended with two nonisomorphic noncommutative connectives (not to be confused with very different Abrusci-Ruet noncommutative logic). We develop a syntax of proof-nets and show how this logic degenerates to Pomset logic. However, a more interesting problem than just finding yet another noncommutative logic is to find a sequent calculus for this logic. We introduce decorated sequents, which are sequents equipped with an extra structure of a binary relation of reachability on formulas. We define a decorated sequent calculus for semicommutative logic and prove that it is cut-free, sound and complete. This is adapted to "degenerate" variations, including Pomset logic. Thus, in particular, we give a variant of sequent calculus formulation for Pomset logic, which is one of the key results of the paper.

Permutative logic (PL) is a noncommutative variant of multiplicative linear logic (MLL) arising from recent investigations concerning the topology of linear proofs. Permutative sequents are structured as oriented surfaces with boundary whose topological complexity is able to encode some information about the exchange in sequential proofs. In this paper we provide a complete permutative sequent calculus by extending that one of PL with rules for additives and exponentials. This extended system, here called permutative linear logic (PLL), is shown to be a conservative extension of linear logic and able to enjoy cut-elimination. Moreover, some basic isomorphisms are pointed out.

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.

The deep inference presentation of multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) benefits from a rich combinatoric analysis with many more proofs in comparison to its sequent calculus presentation. In the deep inference setting, all the sequent calculus proofs are preserved. Moreover, many other proofs become available, and some of these proofs are much shorter. However, proof search in deep inference is subject to a greater nondeterminism, and this nondeterminism constitutes a bottleneck for applications. To this end, we address the problem of reducing nondeterminism in MELL by refining and extending our technique that has been previously applied to multiplicative linear logic and classical logic. We show that, besides the nondeterminism in commutative contexts, the nondeterminism in exponential contexts can be reduced in a proof theoretically clean manner. The method conserves the exponential speed-up in proof construction due to deep inference, exemplified by Statman tautologies. We validate the improvement in accessing the shorter proofs by experiments with our implementations.

We give a general proof-theoretic method for proving Craig interpolation for displayable logics, based on an analysis of the individual proof rules of their display calculi. Using this uniform method, we prove interpolation for a spectrum of display calculi differing in their structural rules, including those for multiplicative linear logic, multiplicative additive linear logic and ordinary classical logic. Our analysis of proof rules also provides new insights into why interpolation fails, or seems likely to fail, in many substructural logics. Specifically, contraction appears particularly problematic for interpolation except in special circumstances.

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.

Subexponential logic is a variant of linear logic with a family of exponential connectives – called subexponentials – that are indexed and arranged in a pre-order. Each subexponential has or lacks associated structural properties of weakening and contraction. We show that a classical propositional multiplicative subexponential logic (MSEL) with one unrestricted and two linear subexponentials can encode the halting problem for two register Minsky machines, and is hence undecidable. We then show how the additive connectives can be directly simulated by giving an encoding of propositional multiplicative additive linear logic (MALL) in an MSEL with one unrestricted and four linear subexponentials.

We prove full completeness of multiplicative linear logic (MLL) without MIX under the Chu interpretation. In particular we show that the cut-free proofs of MLL theorems are in a natural bijection with the binary logical transformations of the corresponding operations on the category of Chu spaces on a two-letter alphabet.