Deep inference and expansion trees for second-order multiplicative linear logic

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.

Constant-only multiplicative linear logic is NP-complete

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.

We give an event structures based true-concurrency characterization of deep inference proofs. The method is general to all deep inference systems that can be expressed as term rewriting systems. This delivers three consequences in a spectrum from theoretical to practical: the event structure characterization i provides a qualification of proof identity akini¾?to proof nets for multiplicative linear logic and to atomic flows for classical logic; ii provides a concurrency theoretic interpretation for applications in logic programming; iii reduces the length of the proofs, and thereby extends the margin of proof search applications.

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

Geometrical semantics for linear logic (multiplicative fragment)

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.

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.

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.

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.

System NEL is the mixed commutative/non-commutative linear logic BV augmented with linear logic's exponentials, or, equivalently, it is MELL augmented with the non-commutative self-dual connective seq. NEL is presented in deep inference, because no Gentzen formalism can express it in such a way that the cut rule is admissible. Other recent work shows that system NEL is Turing-complete, and is able to express process algebra sequential composition directly and model causal quantum evolution faithfully. In this paper, we show cut elimination for NEL, based on a technique that we call splitting. The splitting theorem shows how and to what extent we can recover a sequent-like structure in NEL proofs. When combined with a ‘decomposition’ theorem, proved in the previous paper of this series, splitting yields a cut-elimination procedure for NEL.

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.

Temporal BI: Proof system, semantics and translations

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.

We continue our study of the negation-free structure of multiplicative linear logic, as represented by the structure of weakly distributive categories, to consider the ‘exponentials’! and ? in the weakly distributive context. In addition to the usual triple and cotriple structure that one would expect on each of the two operators, there must be some connection between them to replace the de Morgan relationship found in the linear logic context. This turns out to be the notion of tensorial strength. We analyze coherence for this situation, using a modification of the usual nets due to Danos, which is a form suitable for linear logic with exponentials but without negation.