Studia Logica

, Volume 107, Issue 1, pp 195–231 | Cite as

The Naturality of Natural Deduction

  • Luca TranchiniEmail author
  • Paolo Pistone
  • Mattia Petrolo


Developing a suggestion by Russell, Prawitz showed how the usual natural deduction inference rules for disjunction, conjunction and absurdity can be derived using those for implication and the second order quantifier in propositional intuitionistic second order logic NI\(^2\). It is however well known that the translation does not preserve the relations of identity among derivations induced by the permutative conversions and immediate expansions for the definable connectives, at least when the equational theory of NI\(^2\) is assumed to consist only of \(\beta \)- and \(\eta \)-equations. On the basis of the categorial interpretation of NI\(^2\), we introduce a new class of equations expressing what in categorial terms is a naturality condition satisfied by the transformations interpreting NI\(^2\)-derivations. We show that the Russell–Prawitz translation does preserve identity of proof with respect to the enriched system by highlighting the fact that naturality corresponds to a generalized permutation principle. Finally we sketch how these results could be used to investigate the properties of connectives definable in the framework of higher-level rules.


Identity of proof Permutative conversions Dinaturality condition Functorial interpretation \(\eta \)-conversion Russell–Prawitz translation Second order logic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aczel, P., The Russell-Prawitz modality, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 11: 541–554, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altenkirch, T., P. Dybjer, M. Hoffman, and P. J. Scott, Normalization by evaluation for typed lambda calculus with coproducts, in 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Boston, Massachussetts, 2001, pp. 303–310.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bainbridge, E.S., P. J. Freyd, A. Scedrov, and P. J. Scott, Functorial polymorphism, Theoretical Computer Science 70: 35–64, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Lataillade, J., Dinatural terms in System F, in 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Angeles, California, USA, 2009, pp. 267–276.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferreira, F., and G. Ferreira, Commuting conversions vs. the standard conversions of the “good” connectives, Studia Logica 92(1): 63–84, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferreira, F., and G. Ferreira, Atomic polymorphism, Journal of Symbolic Logic 78(1): 260–274, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freyd, P. J., J.-Y. Girard, A. Scedrov, and P. J. Scott, Semantic parametricity in the polymorphic lambda calculus, in LICS ’88., Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE, 1988, pp. 274–279.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghani, N., \(\beta \eta \)-equality for coproducts, in TLCA ’95, International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, vol. 902 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 171–185.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Girard, J.-Y., Y. Lafont, and P. Taylor, Proof and Types, Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Girard, J.-Y., A. Scedrov, and P. J. Scott, Normal forms and cut-free proofs as natural transformations, in Y. Moschovakis, (ed.), Logic from Computer Science, vol. 21 of Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 217–241.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindley, S., Extensional rewriting with sums, in Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, TLCA 2007, vol. 4583 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 255–271.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prawitz, D., Natural deduction, a proof-theoretical study, Almqvist & Wiskell, 1965.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prawitz, D., Ideas and results in proof theory, in J.E. Fenstad, (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Scandinavian Logic Symposium (Oslo), Studies in logic and foundations of mathematics, vol. 63, North-Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prawitz, D., Proofs and the meaning and completeness of the logical constants, in J. Hintikka, I. Niiniluoto, and E. Saarinen, (eds.), Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic: Proceedings of the Fourth Scandinavian Logic Symposium and the First Soviet-Finnish Logic Conference, Jyväskylä, Finland, June 29–July 6, 1976, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1979, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russell, B., The Principles of Mathematics, George Allen and Unwin Ltd. (2nd edition 1937), 1903.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schroeder-Heister, P., A natural extension of natural deduction, Journal of Symbolic Logic 49(4): 1284–1300, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schroeder-Heister, P., The calculus of higher-level rules, propositional quantification, and the foundational approach to proof-theoretic harmony, Studia Logica 102(6): 1185–1216, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwichtenberg, H., and A. S. Troelstra, Basic proof theory, Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seely, R. A. G., Weak adjointness in proof theory, in Proceedings of the Durham Conference on Applications of Sheaves, vol. 753 of Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer Berlin, 1979, pp. 697–701.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tranchini, L., Proof-theoretic harmony: Towards an intensional account, Synthese, Online first (2016).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceEberhard Karls Universität TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Matematica e FisicaUniversità Roma TreRomeItaly
  3. 3.IHPST, CNRS, ENSUniversité Paris 1 Panthéon SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations