Advertisement

Studia Logica

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 383–416 | Cite as

On an Intuitionistic Modal Logic

  • G. M. Bierman
  • V. C. V. de Paiva
Article

Abstract

In this paper we consider an intuitionistic variant of the modal logic S4 (which we call IS4). The novelty of this paper is that we place particular importance on the natural deduction formulation of IS4— our formulation has several important metatheoretic properties. In addition, we study models of IS4— not in the framework of Kirpke semantics, but in the more general framework of category theory. This allows not only a more abstract definition of a whole class of models but also a means of modelling proofs as well as provability.

intuitionistic logic modal logic proof theory categorical models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Barber, A., Linear Type Theories, Semantics and Action Calculi., PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Benevides, M., and T. Maibaum, ‘A constructive presentation for the modal connective of necessity’, Journal of Logic and Computation 2(1): 31–50, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Benton, P.N., ‘A mixed linear and non-linear logic: Proofs, terms and models’, in Proceedings of Conference on Computer Science Logic, volume 933 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Benton, P.N., G.M. Bierman, and V.C.V. de Paiva, ‘Computational types from a logical perspective’, Journal of Functional Programming 8(2): 177–193, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bierman, G.M., ‘What is a categorical model of intuitionistic linear logic?’, in Proceedings of Second International Conference on Typed λ-calculi and applications, volume 902 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 78–93, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bierman, G.M., and V.C.V. de Paiva, ‘Intuitionistic necessity revisited’, In Proceedings of Logic at Work Conference. Amsterdam, Holland, December 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bierman, G.M., and V.C.V. de Paiva, ‘Yet another intuitionistic modal logic (abstract)’, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 1(2): 226, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Bierman, G.M., and V.C.V. de Paiva, ‘Intuitionistic necessity revisited’, Technical Report CSR–96–10, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, June 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Bull, R., and K. Segerberg, ‘Basic modal logic’, in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pages 1–89. D. Reidel, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Curry, H.B., ‘The elimination theorem when modality is present’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 17(4): 249–265, 1957.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Curry, H.B., Foundations of Mathematical Logic, McGraw-Hill, 1963.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Van Dalen, D., ‘Intuitionistic logic’, volume 3 of Handbook of Philosophical Logic, chapter 4, pages 225–339. Reidel, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Davies, R., and F. Pfenning, ‘A modal analysis of staged computation’, in Proceedings of Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 258–270, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Eilenberg, S., and G.M. Kelly, ‘Closed categories’, in Proceedings of Conference on Categorical Algebra, La Jolla, 1966.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Fairtlough, M., and M. Mendler, ‘An intuitionistic modal logic with applications to the formal verification of hardware’, in Proceedings of Conference on Computer Science Logic, volume 933 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Flagg, R.C., ‘Church's thesis is consistent with epistemic arithmetic’, In Intensional Mathematics, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Gallier, J., ‘Constructive logics part I: A tutorial on proof systems and typed λ-calculi’, Theoretical Computer Science 110(2): 249–339, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Gentzen, G., ‘Investigations into logical deduction’, in M.E. Szabo (ed.), The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, pages 68–131, North-Holland, 1969.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Ghilardi, S., and G. Meloni, ‘Modal and tense predicate logic: models in presheaves and categorical conceptualization’, in Categorical Algebra and its Applications, volume 1348 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 130–142, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Girard, J.-Y., ‘Linear logic’, Theoretical Computer Science 50: 1–101, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Girard, J.-Y., Y. Lafont, and P. Taylor, Proofs and Types, volume 7 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    GorÉ, R.P., Cut-free Sequent and Tableau Systems for Propositional Normal Modal Logics, PhD thesis, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 1992. Available as Computer Laboratory Technical Report 257.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Howard, W.A., ‘The formulae-as-types notion of construction’, in J.R. Hindley and J.P. Seldin (eds.), To H.B. Curry: Essays on combinatory logic, lambda calculus and formalism, Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Lambek, J., and P.J. Scott, Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, volume 7 of Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Mac Lane, S., Categories for the Working Mathematican, volume 5 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer Verlag, 1971.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Martini, S., and A. Masini, ‘A computational interpretation of modal proofs’, Technical Report TR-27/93, Dipartimento di informatica, Università di Pisa, November 1993.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Mints, G.E., Selected Papers in Proof Theory, Bibliopolis, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Mints, G.E., ‘Linear lambda-terms and natural deduction’, Studia Logica 60: 209–231, 1998.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Mints, G.E., ‘Normal deduction in the intuitionistic linear logic’, Archive for Mathematical Logic 37(5–6): 415–426, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Moggi, E., ‘Notions of computation and monads’, Information and Control 93(1): 55–92, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Pitts, A.M., ‘Categorical logic’, Technical Report 367, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, May 1995.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Prawitz, D., Natural Deduction, volume 3 of Stockholm Studies in Philosophy, Almqvist and Wiksell, 1965.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Prawitz, D., ‘Ideas and results in proof theory’, In J.E. Fenstad (ed.), Proceedings of Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pages 235–307, 1971.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Reyes, G.E., and H. Zolfaghari, ‘Topos-theoretic approaches to modalities’, Technical Report 911–8, Université de Montréal, Québec, April 1991.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Satre, T.W., ‘Natural deduction rules for modal logics’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 8(4): 461–475, October 1972.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Schwichtenberg, H., ‘Proof theory: Some applications of cut-elimination’, in J. Barwise (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Logic, chapter D.2, pages 867–896, North Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Simpson, A., The Proof Theory and Semantics of Intuitionistic Modal Logics, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, December 1993.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Stirling, C.P., ‘Modal logics for communicating systems’, Theoretical Computer Science 49: 311–347, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. Bierman
    • 1
  • V. C. V. de Paiva
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamEngland

Personalised recommendations