Deriving Theorems in Implicational Linear Logic, Declaratively

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.

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.

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.

Girard's linear logic [Gir87] is an extension of propositional logic with new connectives providing a logical treatment of resource control. As a first hint, consider the linear λ-terms, which are the λ-terms defined with the following restriction: when an abstraction λ x.M is formed, then x occurs exactly once in M . Linear λ-terms are normalized in linear time, that is, the number of reduction steps to their normal form is proportional to their size: a linear β-redex (λ x.M ) N involves no duplication of the argument N . Thus all the complexity of normalization comes from non-linearity. Linear logic pushes the limits of constructivity much beyond intuitionistic logic. A proper proof theoretical introduction to linear logic is beyond the scope of this book. In this chapter, we content ourselves with a semantic introduction. By doing so, we actually follow the historical thread: the connectives of linear logic arose from the consideration of (a particularly simple version of) the stable model. In section 13.1, we examine stable functions between coherence spaces, and discover two decompositions. First the function space E → E ′ is isomorphic to a space (! E )⊸ E ′, where ⊸ constructs the space of linear functions, and where! is a constructor which allows reuse of data. Intuitively, linear functions, like linear terms, can use their input only once. On the other hand, the explicit declaration of reusability,!, allows us to recover all functions and terms.

A theorem for embedding a first‐order linear‐time temporal logic LTL into its intuitionistic counterpart ILTL is proved using Baratella‐Masini's temporal extension of the Gödel‐Gentzen negative translation of classical logic into intuitionistic logic. A substructural counterpart LLTL of ILTL is introduced, and a theorem for embedding ILTL into LLTL is proved using a temporal extension of the Girard translation of intuitionistic logic into intuitionistic linear logic. These embedding theorems are proved syntactically based on Gentzen‐type sequent calculi.

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].

This article shows how individual Petri nets form models of Girard's intuitionistic linear logic. It explores questions of expressiveness and completeness of linear logic with respect to this interpretation. An aim is to use Petri nets to give an understanding of linear logic and give some appraisal of the value of linear logic as a specification logic for Petri nets. This article might serve as a tutorial, providing one in-road into Girard's linear logic via Petri nets. With this in mind we have added several exercises and their solutions. We have made no attempt to be exhaustive in our treatment, dedicating our treatment to one semantics of intuitionistic linear logic.Completeness is shown for several versions of Girard's linear logic with respect to Petri nets as the class of models. The strongest logic considered is intuitionistic linear logic, with ⊗, ⊸, &, ⊕ and the exponential ! (“of course”), and forms of quantification. This logic is shown sound and complete with respect to atomic nets (these include nets in which every transition leads to a nonempty multiset of places). The logic is remarkably expressive, enabling descriptions of the kinds of properties one might wish to show of nets; in particular, negative properties, asserting the impossibility of an assertion, can also be expressed. A start is made on decidability issues.

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.

The Complexity of Local Proof Search in Linear Logic: (Extended Abstract)

Intuitionistic linear logic regains the expressive power of intuitionistic logic through the ! (‘of course’) modality. Benton, Bierman, Hyland and de Paiva have given a term assignment system for ILL and an associated notion of categorical model in which the ! modality is modelled by a comonad satisfying certain extra conditions. Ordinary intuitionistic logic is then modelled in a cartesian closed category which arises as a full subcategory of the category of coalgebras for the comonad. This paper attempts to explain the connection between ILL and IL more directly and symmetrically by giving a logic, term calculus and categorical model for a system in which the linear and non-linear worlds exist on an equal footing, with operations allowing one to pass in both directions. We start from the categorical model of ILL given by Benton, Bierman, Hyland and de Paiva and show that this is equivalent to having a symmetric monoidal adjunction between a symmetric monoidal closed category and a cartesian closed category. We then derive both a sequent calculus and a natural deduction presentation of the logic corresponding to the new notion of model.

Temporal BI: Proof system, semantics and translations

We present a matrix characterization of logical validity in the multiplicative fragment of linear logic. On this basis we develop a matrix-based proof search procedure for this fragment and a procedure which translates the machine-found proofs back into the usual sequent calculus for linear logic. Both procedures are straightforward extensions of methods which originally were developed for a uniform treatment of classical, intuitionistic and modal logics. They can be extended to further fragments of linear logic once a matrix characterization has been found.KeywordsModal LogicIntuitionistic LogicLinear LogicSequent CalculusSequent RuleThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Constant-only multiplicative linear logic is NP-complete

We describe a natural deduction system NDIL for the second order intuitionistic linear logic which admits normalization and has a subformula property. NDIL is an extension of the system for !-free multiplicative linear logic constructed by the author and elaborated by A. Babaev. Main new feature here is the treatment of the modality !. It uses a device inspired by D. Prawitz' treatment of S4 combined with a construction \( \) introduced by the author to avoid cut-like constructions used in \(\otimes\)-elimination and global restrictions employed by Prawitz. Normal form for natural deduction is obtained by Prawitz translation of cut-free sequent derivations.

Given an intuitionistic proof net of linear logic, we abstract an order between its atomic formulas. From this order, we represent intuitionistic multiplicative proof nets in the more compact form of models of directed acyclic graph descriptions. If we restrict the logical framework to the implicative fragment of intuitionistic linear logic, we show that proof nets reduce to models of tree descriptions.KeywordsDirected Acyclic GraphConstraint Satisfaction ProblemAtomic FormulaLinear LogicSequent CalculusThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.