Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 121–166 | Cite as

A Matrix Characterization for Multiplicative Exponential Linear Logic

  • Christoph Kreitz
  • Heiko Mantel
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

We develop a matrix characterization of logical validity in MELL, the multiplicative fragment of propositional linear logic with exponentials and constants. To prove the correctness and completeness of our characterization, we use a purely proof-theoretical justification rather than semantical arguments. Our characterization is based on concepts similar to matrix characterizations proposed by Wallen for other nonclassical logics. It provides a foundation for developing proof search procedures for MELL by adopting techniques that are based on these concepts and also makes it possible to adopt algorithms that translate the machine-found proofs back into the usual sequent calculus for MELL.

linear logic automated deduction connection method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andreoli, J.-M. (1993) Logic programming with focussing proofs in linear logic, J. Logic Comput. 2(3), 297-347.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoli, J.-M. (2001) Focussing and proof construction, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 107(1), 131-163.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, P. (1981) Theorem-proving via general matings. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 28(2), 193-214.Google Scholar
  4. Bibel, W. (1981) On matrices with connections, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 28, 633-645.Google Scholar
  5. Bibel, W. (1986) A deductive solution for plan generation, New Generation Computing 4, 115-132.Google Scholar
  6. Bibel, W. (1987) Automated Theorem Proving, 2nd edn, Vieweg Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Cervesato, I., Hodas, J. S. and Pfenning, F. (2000) Efficient resource management for linear logic proof search, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 232(1-2), 133-163.Google Scholar
  8. Danos, V. and Regnier, L. (1989) The structure of the multiplicatives, Arch.Math. Logic 28, 181-203.Google Scholar
  9. Fronhöfer, B. (1996) The Action-As-Implication Paradigm, CS Press.Google Scholar
  10. Galmiche, D. (2000) Connection methods in linear logic and proof nets construction, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 232(2), 231-272.Google Scholar
  11. Galmiche, D. and Marion, J. Y. (1995) Semantics proof search methods for ALL-a first approach, in P. Baumgartner, R. Hähnle and J. Posegga (eds), 4thWorkshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods-Short Papers & Poster Sessions, Institute of Computer Science, Universität Koblenz.Google Scholar
  12. Galmiche, D. and Martin, B. (1997) Proof search and proof nets construction in linear logic, in 4th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (WoLLIC'97).Google Scholar
  13. Galmiche, D. and Notin, J. (2000) Proof-search and proof nets in mixed linear logic, Electronic Notes in Theoret. Comput. Sci. 37.Google Scholar
  14. Galmiche, D. and Notin, J. (2001) Calculi with dependency relations for mixed linear logic, in Workshop on Logic and Complexity in Computer Science, LCCS 2001.Google Scholar
  15. Galmiche, D. and Notin, J. (2002) Based-on dependency calculi for non-commutative logic, preprint.Google Scholar
  16. Galmiche, D. and Perrier, G. (1992) A procedure for automatic proof nets construction, in A. Voronkov (ed.), LPAR'92, Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, St. Petersburgh, Russia, July 1992, Springer-Verlag, pp. 42-53.Google Scholar
  17. Galmiche, D. and Perrier, G. (1994) On proof normalization in linear logic, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 135(1), 67-110.Google Scholar
  18. Gehlot, V. and Gunter, C. (1991) Normal process representatives, in G. Kahn (ed.), LICS-91-Sixth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, July 1991, pp. 200-207.Google Scholar
  19. Girard, J.-Y. (1987) Linear logic, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 50, 1-102.Google Scholar
  20. Girard, J.-Y. (1996) Proof-nets: The parallel syntax for proof-theory, in Logic and Algebra, pp. 97-124.Google Scholar
  21. Harland, J. and Pym, D. (1997) Resource-distribution via Boolean constraints, in W. McCune (ed.), 14th Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1249, Springer-Verlag, pp. 222-236.Google Scholar
  22. Hodas, J. and Miller, D. (1994) Logic programming in a fragment of linear logic, J. Inform. Comput. 110(2), 327-365.Google Scholar
  23. Kanovich, M. I. (1991) The multiplicative fragment of linear logic is NP-complete, ITLI Prepublication Series X-91-13, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Kreitz, C., Mantel, H., Otten, J. and Schmitt, S. (1997) Connection-based proof construction in linear logic, in W. McCune (ed.), 14th Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1249, Springer-Verlag, pp. 207-221.Google Scholar
  25. Kreitz, C. and Otten, J. (1999) Connection-based theorem proving in classical and non-classical logics, J. Universal Comput. Sci. 5(3), 88-112.Google Scholar
  26. Kreitz, C. and Schmitt, S. (2000) A uniform procedure for converting matrix proofs into sequent-style systems, J. Inform. Comput. 162(1-2), 226-254.Google Scholar
  27. Lincoln, P. and Winkler, T. (1994) Constant-only multiplicative linear logic is NP-complete, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 135, 155-169.Google Scholar
  28. Mantel, H. and Kreitz, C. (1998) A matrix characterization for MELL, in U. F. J. Dix and F. L. Del Cerro (eds), 6th European Workshop on Logics in AI (JELIA-98), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1489, Springer-Verlag, pp. 169-183.Google Scholar
  29. Mantel, H. and Otten, J. (1999) linTAP: A tableau prover for linear logic, in N. Murray (ed.), Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX-99), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1617, Springer-Verlag, pp. 217-231.Google Scholar
  30. Masseron, M., Tollu, C. and Vauzeilles, J. (1991) Generating plans in linear logic, in Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, pp. 63-75.Google Scholar
  31. McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, Machine Intelligence 4, 463-502.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, D. (1996) FORUM: A multiple-conclusion specification logic, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 165(1), 201-232.Google Scholar
  33. Otten, J. and Kreitz, C. (1996) T-string-unification: Unifying prefixes in non-classical proof methods, in U. Moscato (ed.), 5th Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1071, Springer-Verlag, pp. 244-260.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt, S., Lorigo, L., Kreitz, C. and Nogin, A. (2001) JProver: Integrating connection-based theorem proving into interactive proof assistants, in: R. Gore, A. Leitsch and T. Nipkow (eds), International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2083, Springer-Verlag, pp. 421-426.Google Scholar
  35. Tammet, T. (1994) Proof strategies in linear logic, J. Automated Reasoning 12, 273-304.Google Scholar
  36. Waaler, A. (2001) Connections in nonclassical logics, in J. A. Robinson and A. Voronkov (eds), Handbook of Automated Reasoning, Elsevier and MIT Press, Chapt. 22, pp. 1487-1578.Google Scholar
  37. Wallen, L. (1990) Automated Deduction in Nonclassical Logics, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Kreitz
    • 1
  • Heiko Mantel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaU.S.A.
  2. 2.ETH ZürichInformation SecurityZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations