CSR 2008: Computer Science – Theory and Applications pp 52-63 | Cite as
A Triple Correspondence in Canonical Calculi: Strong Cut-Elimination, Coherence, and Non-deterministic Semantics
Abstract
An (n,k)-ary quantifier is a generalized logical connective, binding k variables and connecting n formulas. Canonical systems with (n,k)-ary quantifiers form a natural class of Gentzen-type systems which in addition to the standard axioms and structural rules have only logical rules in which exactly one occurrence of a quantifier is introduced. The semantics for these systems is provided using two-valued non-deterministic matrices, a generalization of the classical matrix. In this paper we use a constructive syntactic criterion of coherence to characterize strong cut-elimination in such systems. We show that the following properties of a canonical system G with arbitrary (n,k)-ary quantifiers are equivalent: (i) G is coherent, (ii) G admits strong cut-elimination, and (iii) G has a strongly characteristic two-valued generalized non-deterministic matrix.
Keywords
Atomic Formula Predicate Symbol Structural Rule Sequent Calculus Canonical SystemPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Avron, A.: Gentzen-Type Systems, Resolution and Tableaux. Journal of Automated Reasoning 10, 265–281 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 2.Avron, A.,, Lev, I.: Non-deterministic Multi-valued Structures. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 241–261 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 3.Avron, A., Zamansky, A.: Generalized Non-deterministic matrices and (n,k)-ary quantifiers. In: Artemov, S.N., Nerode, A. (eds.) LFCS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4514, pp. 26–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Avron, A., Zamansky, A.: Canonical calculi with (n,k)-ary quantifiers. Journal of Logical Methods in Computer Science (forthcming, 2008)Google Scholar
- 5.Baaz, M., Fermüller, C.G., Salzer, G., Zach, R.: Labeled Calculi and Finite-valued Logics. Studia Logica 61, 7–33 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.Carnielli, W.A.: Systematization of Finite Many-valued Logics through the method of Tableaux. Journal of Symbolic Logic 52(2), 473–493 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.Carnielli, W.A., Conglio, M.E.: Splitting Logics. In: Artemov,, Barringer,, Garcez,, Lamb (eds.) We Will Show Them!, Essays in Honour of Dov Gabbay, vol. 1, pp. 389–414. Woods College Publications (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.Ciabattoni, A., Terui, K.: Modular cut-elimination: Finding proofs or counter-examples. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4246, pp. 135–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Church, A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 56–68 (1940)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 10.Gentzen, G.: Investigations into Logical Deduction. In: Szabo, M.E. (ed.) The collected works of Gerhard Gentzen, pp. 68–131. North Holland, Amsterdam (1969)Google Scholar
- 11.Hähnle, R.: Commodious Axiomatization of Quantifiers in Many-valued Logic. Studia Logica 61, 101–121 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 12.Henkin, L.: Some remarks on infinitely long formulas. In: Infinistic Methods, pp. 167–183. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1961)Google Scholar
- 13.Kalish, D., Montague, R.: Logic, Techniques. of Formal Reasoning. Brace and World, Inc., New York, Harcourt (1964)Google Scholar
- 14.Miller, D., Pimentel, E.: Using Linear logic to reason about sequent systems. In: Egly, U., Fermüller, C. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2381, pp. 2–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Shroeder-Heister, P.: Natural deduction calculi with rules of higher levels. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 275–276 (1985)Google Scholar
- 16.Troelstra, A.S., Schwichtenberg, H.: Basic Proof Theory, pp. 126–130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 17.Zamansky, A., Avron, A.: ‘Cut Elimination and Quantification in Canonical Systems’. Studia Logica 82(1), 157–176 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar