May I borrow your logic? (Transporting logical structures along maps)

Mathematical logic and computer science have driven the design of a growing number of logics and related formalisms such as set theories and type theories. In response to this population explosion, logical frameworks have been developed as formal meta-languages in which to represent, structure, relate and reason about logics.Research on logical frameworks has diverged into separate communities, often with conflicting backgrounds and philosophies. In particular, two of the most important logical frameworks are the framework of institutions, from the area of model theory based on category theory, and the Edinburgh Logical Framework LF, from the area of proof theory based on dependent type theory. Even though their ultimate motivations overlap – for example in applications to software verification – they have fundamentally different perspectives on logic.In the current paper, we design a logical framework that integrates the frameworks of institutions and LF in a way that combines their complementary advantages while retaining the elegance of each of them. In particular, our framework takes a balanced approach between model theory and proof theory, and permits the representation of logics in a way that comprises all major ingredients of a logic: syntax, models, satisfaction, judgments and proofs. This provides a theoretical basis for the systematic study of logics in a comprehensive logical framework. Our framework has been applied to obtain a large library of structured and machine-verified encodings of logics and logic translations.

Logic of agreement: foundations, semantic system and proof theory

Computability is one of the fundamental notions of mathematics and computer science, trying to capture the effective content of mathematics and its applications. Computability Theory explores the frontiers and limits of effectiveness and algorithmic methods. It has its origins in Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and the formalization of computability by Turing and others, which later led to the emergence of computer science as we know it today. Computability Theory is strongly connected to other areas of mathematics and theoretical computer science. The core of this theory is the analysis of relative computability and the induced degrees of unsolvability; its applications are mainly to Kolmogorov complexity and randomness as well as mathematical logic, analysis and algebra. Current research in computability theory stresses these applications and focuses on algorithmic randomness, computable analysis, computable model theory, and reverse mathematics (proof theory). Recent advances in these research directions have revealed some deep interactions not only among these areas but also with the core parts of computability theory. The goal of this Dagstuhl Seminar is to bring together researchers from all parts of computability theory and related areas in order to discuss advances in the individual areas and the interactions among those.

A major concern to the founders of modern logic—Frege, Peirce, Russell, and Hilbert—was to give an account of the logical structure of valid reasoning. Taking valid reasoning in mathematics as paradigmatic, these pioneers led the way in developing the accounts of logic which we teach today and that underwrite the work in model theory, proof theory, and definability theory. The resulting notions of proof, model, formal system, soundness, and completeness are things that no one claiming familiarity with logic can fail to understand, and they have also played an enormous role in the revolution known as computer science. The success of this model of inference led to an explosion of results and applications. But it also led most logicians—and those computer scientists most influenced by the logic tradition—to neglect forms of reasoning that did not fit well within this model. We are thinking, of course, of reasoning that uses devices like diagrams, graphs, charts, frames, nets, maps, and pictures. The attitude of the traditional logician to these forms of representation is evident in the quotation of Neil Tennant in Chapter I, which expresses the standard view of the role of diagrams in geometrical proofs. One aim of our work, as explained there, is to demonstrate that this dogma is misguided. We believe that many of the problems people have putting their knowledge of logic to work, whether in machines or in their own lives, stems from the logocentricity that has pervaded its study for the past hundred years. Recently, some researchers outside the logic tradition have explored uses of diagrams in knowledge representation and automated reasoning, finding inspiration in the work of Euler, Venn, and especially C. S. Peirce. This volume is a testament to this resurgence of interest in nonlinguistic representations in reasoning. While we applaud this resurgence, the aim of this chapter is to strike a cautionary note or two. Enchanted by the potential of nonlinguistic representations, it is all too easy to overreact and so to repeat the errors of the past.

The ability to reason and think in a logical manner forms the basis of learning for most mathematics, computer science, philosophy and logic students. Based on the author's teaching notes at the University of Maryland and aimed at a broad audience, this text covers the fundamental topics in classical logic in an extremely clear, thorough and accurate style that is accessible to all the above. Covering propositional logic, first-order logic, and second-order logic, as well as proof theory, computability theory, and model theory, the text also contains numerous carefully graded exercises and is ideal for a first or refresher course.

We present Classical BI (CBI), a new addition to the family of bunched logics which originates in O'Hearn and Pym's logic of bunched implications BI. CBI differs from existing bunched logics in that its multiplicative connectives behave classically rather than intuitionistically (including in particular a multiplicative version of classical negation). At the semantic level, CBI-formulas have the normal bunched logic reading as declarative statements about resources, but its resource models necessarily feature more structure than those for other bunched logics; principally, they satisfy the requirement that every resource has a unique dual. At the proof-theoretic level, a very natural formalism for CBI is provided by a display calculus \`a la Belnap, which can be seen as a generalisation of the bunched sequent calculus for BI. In this paper we formulate the aforementioned model theory and proof theory for CBI, and prove some fundamental results about the logic, most notably completeness of the proof theory with respect to the semantics.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular nonmonotonic formalism used for common-sense reasoning and problem-solving based on stable model semantics. Equilibrium logic is a generalisation of ASP for arbitrary propositional theories and thus provides a logical characterisation of the nonmonotonic stable model semantics. In difference to classical logic, which can be defined via proof or model theory, nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms are defined via their models exclusively. Equilibrium logic is no exception here, as it has no proper proof-theoretic axiomatisation. Besides this being a theoretical imbalance, it also has consequences regarding notions of justification and explainability. In this work, we fill this gap by providing a sequent calculus for answer set entailment. Our calculus builds upon ideas from existing calculi for other nonmonotonic formalisms and utilises calculi for the logic of here and there, which is the underlying base logic of equilibrium logic. We show that the calculus is sound and complete and discuss pitfalls as well as alternative axiomatisations. Finally, we address how our approach can be of use for explainability in ASP.

In multiagent domains, agents form coalitions to perform tasks. The usual models of cooperative game theory assume that the desired outcome is either the grand coalition or a coalition structure that consists of disjoint coalitions (i.e., a partition of the set of agents). However, in practice an agent may be involved in executing more than one task, and distributing his resources between several (not necessarily disjoint) coalitions. To tackle such scenarios, we introduce a model for cooperative games with overlapping coalitions. We then focus on concepts of stability in this setting. In particular, we define and study a notion of the core, which is a generalization of the corresponding notion in the traditional models of cooperative game theory. Under some quite general conditions, we characterize the elements of core. As a corollary, we also show that any element of the core maximizes the social welfare. We then introduce a concept of balancedness for overlapping coalitional games, and use it to characterize coalition structures that can be extended to elements of the core. Furthermore, we generalize the notion of convexity to our setting, and show that under some natural assumptions convex games have a non-empty core. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to provide a generic model for overlapping coalition formation, along with a theoretical treatment of stability in this setting.

Scientific models are increasingly expected to support decision making in complex governance environments. However, the institutional embedding of model outputs often encounters structural mismatches between the modeling and governance domains. This study explored how model-derived knowledge can be translated into actionable governance practices by integrating two theoretical perspectives: the Socialization-Externalization-Combination-Internalization (SECI) model of knowledge conversion and science-policy interface theory. Drawing on empirical evidence from the Eastern Route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project, we constructed a comparative framework to analyze alignment and misalignment across four key dimensions: semantic representation, logical structure, procedural compatibility, and institutional integration. Our findings revealed that successful model uptake depended not only on the technical quality of models but also on the compatibility of their outputs with policy language, decision routines, and organizational mechanisms. This work provided theoretical and practical insights into improving the usability and impact of scientific models within policy processes.

This paper presents a unified treatment of the propositional and first-order many-valued logics through the method of tableaux. It is shown that several important results on the proof theory and model theory of those logics can be obtained in a general way.We obtain, in this direction, abstract versions of the completeness theorem, model existence theorem (using a generalization of the classical analytic consistency properties), compactness theorem and Löwenheim-Skolem theorem.The paper is completely self-contained and includes examples of application to particular many-valued formal systems.

One task of metamathematics is to relate suggestive but nonelementary modeltheoretic concepts to more elementary proof-theoretic concepts, thereby opening up modeltheoretic problems to proof-theoretic methods of attack. Herbrand's Theorem (see [8] or also [9], vol. 2) or Gentzen's Extended Hauptsatz (see [5] or also [10]) was first used along these lines by Beth [1]. Using a modified version he showed that for all first-order systems a certain modeltheoretic notion of definability coincides with a certain proof theoretic notion. In the present paper the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem will be applied to generalize Beth's results from primitive predicate symbols to arbitrary formulas and terms.This may be interpreted as showing that (apart from some relatively minor exceptions which will be made apparent below) the expressive power of each first-order system is rounded out, or the system is functionally complete, in the following sense: Any functional relationship which obtains between concepts that are expressible in the system is itself expressible and provable in the system.A second application is concerned with the hierarchy of second-order formulas. A certain relationship is shown to hold between first-order formulas and those second-order formulas which are of the form (∃T1)…(∃Tk)A or (T1)…(Tk)A with A being a first-order formula. Modeltheoretically this can be regarded as a relationship between the class AC and the class PC⊿ of sets of models, investigated by Tarski in [12] and [13].

There are various logic-based approaches to modelling concurrent programming. The use of logic for system development concerns both the specification step and the study of the operational aspects (through proof analysis and construction) of such development. This means that we have to consider different logical systems for different uses of logic. Moreover, we can also consider concurrency from both points of view: we want to reason and to specify systems where some concurrency aspects are involved, but also to have some operational interpretation of concurrency within logic (focusing on the concept of proof). For this purpose, it seems clear that we have to identify and to study, on the one hand, the role and the treatment of objects (representation, inheritance, modularity, communication, and so on) in this context, and, on the other hand, the interaction of work on proofs and concurrency with the Object-Oriented Programming paradigm.The ECOOP’96 workshop on ‘Proof Theory of Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming’ took place in Linz, Austria, in July 1996. Its objective was to provide an integrated forum for the presentation of research and the exchange of ideas and experiences in the topics concerned with proofs, concurrency and object-oriented programming (specification, proof development, and so on). The call for papers for this Special Issue of Mathematical Structures in Computer Science can be considered to have been a natural scientific continuation of the workshop.The papers selected for this Special Issue address some of the topics discussed in the workshop. They present different alternative frameworks that are effectively based on a proof-theoretic approach. They illustrate, from different points of view, the interest, potentialities and difficulties of dealing with such an approach in the design of object-based concurrent systems.

One of the first results in model theory [12] asserts that a first-order sentence is preserved in extensions if and only if it is equivalent to an existential sentence.In the first section of this paper, we analyze a natural program for extending this result to a class of languages extending first-order logic, notably including L(Q) and L(aa), respectively the languages with the quantifiers “there exist un-countably many” and “for almost all countable subsets”.In the second section we answer a question of Bruce [3] by showing that this program cannot resolve the question for L(Q). We also consider whether the natural class of “generalized Σ-sentences” in L(Q) characterizes the class of sentences preserved in extensions, refuting the relativized version but leaving the unrestricted question open.In the third section we show that the analogous class of L(aa)-sentences preserved in extensions does not include (up to elementary equivalence) all such sentences. This particular candidate class was nominated, rather tentatively, by Bruce [3].In the fourth section we show that under rather general conditions, if L is a countably compact extension of first-order logic and T is an ℵ1-categorical first-order theory, then L is trivial relative to T.

The second edition of this six-volume textbook has received a comprehensive update and is appearing completely in colour. It builds a bridge for teachers and students of physics between phenomena, modeling, and experiments, and advanced theories. Its logical structure and clear presentation support students with learning aids on various levels. Volume 5: quantum optics, atomic physics, subatomic physics.

Transition systems are often used to describe the behaviour of software systems. If viewed as a graph then, at their most basic level, vertices correspond to the states of a program and each edge represents a transition between states via the (atomic) action labelled. In this setting, systems are thought to be consistent and at each state formulas are evaluated as either true or false. On the other hand, when a structure of this sort—e.g. a map where states represent locations, some local properties are known and labelled transitions represent information available about different routes—is built resorting to multiple sources of information, it is common to find inconsistent or incomplete information regarding what holds at each state, both at the level of propositional variables and transitions. This paper aims at bringing together Belnap’s four values, Dynamic Logic and hybrid machinery such as nominals and the satisfaction operator, so that reasoning is still possible in face of contradicting evidence. Proof-theory for this new logic is explored by means of a terminating, sound and complete tableau system.