Translations Between Gentzen–Prawitz and Jaśkowski–Fitch Natural Deduction Proofs
Two common forms of natural deduction proof systems are found in the Gentzen–Prawitz and Jaśkowski–Fitch systems. In this paper, I provide translations between proofs in these systems, pointing out the ways in which the translations highlight the structural rules implicit in the systems. These translations work for classical, intuitionistic, and minimal logic. I then provide translations for classical S4 proofs.
KeywordsProof theory Tree systems Cascade systems
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
I would like to thank Greg Restall, Allen Hazen, Rohan French, Fabio Lampert, and the members of the Melbourne Logic Seminar for feedback on this work. I am grateful to two anonymous referees for their detailed, constructive reports, which significantly improved the presentation of this paper and helped me to correct some errors. I owe a special thanks to Valeria de Paiva, Luiz Carlos Pereira, and Edward Hermann Haeusler, whose short course on tree-style natural deduction at NASSLLI 2016 motivated this research. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council, Discovery Grant DP150103801.
- 1.Anderson, A. R., and N. D. Belnap, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Neccessity, volume 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.Google Scholar
- 2.Barker-Plummer, D., J. Barwise, and J. Etchemendy, Language, Proof and Logic. CSLI Publications, 2nd edition, 2011.Google Scholar
- 4.Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, NP, 2002.Google Scholar
- 6.Brady, R. T., Natural deduction systems for some quantified relevant logics, Logique Et Analyse 27(8): 355–377, 1984.Google Scholar
- 9.Fitch, F. B., Symbolic Logic. Ronald Press Co., New York, 1952.Google Scholar
- 10.Fitch, F. B., Natural deduction rules for obligation. American Philosophical Quarterly 3(1): 27–38, January 1966.Google Scholar
- 11.Garson, J. W., Modal Logic for Philosophers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2013.Google Scholar
- 12.Gentzen, G., Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen, I and II, Mathematische Zeitschrift 39: 176–210, 405–431, 1934. Translated as “Investigations into Logical Deduction” parts I and II, and published in American Philosophical Quarterly 1: 288–306, 1964, and 2: 204–218, 1965, respectively. The full article was reprinted in M. E. Szabo (ed.), The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, pp. 68–131.Google Scholar
- 18.Hughes, G. E., and M. J. Cresswell, A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge, London, 2012.Google Scholar
- 19.Humberstone, L., Philosophical Applications of Modal Logic. College Publications, London, 2016.Google Scholar
- 21.Jaśkowski, S., On the rules of suppositions in formal logic. Studia Logica 1: 5–32, 1934. Reprinted in S. McCall, (ed.), Polish Logic 1920–1939, Oxford University Press, 1967, pp. 232–258.Google Scholar
- 22.Kozhemiachenko, D., A simulation of natural deduction and Gentzen sequent calculus, Logic and Logical Philosophy 27(1): 67–84, 2017. https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2017.009.
- 26.Mints, G., A Short Introduction to Modal Logic. Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1992.Google Scholar
- 31.Pelletier, F. J., A history of natural deduction and elementary logic textbooks, in J. Woods and B. Brown, (eds.), Logical Consequence: Rival Approaches, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 105–138.Google Scholar
- 32.Pelletier, F. J., and A. Hazen, Natural deduction, in D. Gabbay and J. Woods, (eds.), Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 11, Dordrecht, 2012, pp. 341–414.Google Scholar
- 33.Prawitz, D., Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study. Almqvist and Wicksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
- 34.Quispe-Cruz, M., E. H. Haeusler, and L. Gordeev, Proof graphs for minimal implicational logic, in M. Ayala-Rincón, E. Bonelli, and I. Mackie, (eds.), Proceedings 9th International Workshop on Developments in Computational Models, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 26 August 2013, vol. 144 of Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Open Publishing Association, 2014, pp. 16–29. https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.144.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Raggio, A., Gentzen’s Hauptsatz for the systems NI and NK, Logique Et Analyse 8: 91–100, 1965.Google Scholar
- 36.Read, S., Harmony and modality, in C. Dégremont, L. Keiff, and H. Rückert, (eds.), On Dialogues, Logics and other Strange Things, Kings College Publications, 2008, pp. 285–303.Google Scholar
- 46.Thomason, R. H., A Fitch-style formulation of conditional logic. Logique Et Analyse 52: 397–412, 1970.Google Scholar
- 47.van Benthem, J., Modal Logic for Open Minds. CSLI Publications, 2010.Google Scholar
- 49.von Plato, J., A problem of normal form in natural deduction. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 46(1): 121–124, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3870(200001)46:1<121::AID-MALQ121>3.0.CO;2-A.