Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Trends in Logic ((TREN,volume 13))

  • 497 Accesses

Abstract

In Chapter 2, we examined two different kinds of formalisms whose role is undoubtedly central in the proof theory of substructural logics: sequent calculi, on the one hand, and Hilbert-style systems, on the other. On that occasion, we noticed that there are at least six well-motivated axiomatic calculi — HRW, HR, HRMI, HRM, HLuk, and HLuk 3 — which do not have any sequential counterpart, in that they seem scarcely amenable to a treatment by means of traditional sequents. As we already remarked, Hilbert-style calculi are defmitely not the best one could hope for when it comes to engaging in proof search and theorem proving tasks. As a consequence, it seems desirable to find efficient and manageable formalisms also for the above-mentioned logics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See the next section for a thorough explanation of this terminology.

    Google Scholar 

  2. There is, however, a simpler cut elimination method for hypersequent calculi (see e.g. Ciabattoni and Ferrari 2001); its key feature is that the number of applications of EC is considered as an independent parameter in the induction.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For details, see Avron (1987; 1991b).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Slaney (1990) motivates very well these two different forms of bunching. X; Y is viewed as “the result of taking [the body of information] X as the determinant of available inference and applying it to Y”, whereas X, Y is taken as “the result of pooling information X with information Y”.

    Google Scholar 

  5. More precisely, Avron maintains that the first three properties are indispensable, whereas the last three are simply desirable.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Paoli, F. (2002). Other Formalisms. In: Substructural Logics: A Primer. Trends in Logic, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3179-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3179-9_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6014-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3179-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics