Advertisement

Undecidability of the Lambek Calculus with a Relevant Modality

  • Max Kanovich
  • Stepan Kuznetsov
  • Andre Scedrov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9804)

Abstract

Morrill and Valentín in the paper “Computational coverage of TLG: Nonlinearity” considered an extension of the Lambek calculus enriched by a so-called “exponential” modality. This modality behaves in the “relevant” style, that is, it allows contraction and permutation, but not weakening. Morrill and Valentín stated an open problem whether this system is decidable. Here we show its undecidability. Our result remains valid if we consider the fragment where all division operations have one direction. We also show that the derivability problem in a restricted case, where the modality can be applied only to variables (primitive types), is decidable and belongs to the NP class.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Stepan Kuznetsov’s research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 15-01-09218-a and 14-01-00127-a) and by the Presidential Council for Support of Leading Scientific Schools (grant NŠ-9091.2016.1). Max Kanovich’s research was partially supported by EPSRC. Andre Scedrov’s research was partially supported by ONR.

This research was performed in part during visits of Stepan Kuznetsov and Max Kanovich to the University of Pennsylvania. We greatly appreciate support of the Mathematics Department of the University. A part of the work was also done during the stay of Andre Scedrov at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. We would like to thank S.O. Kuznetsov and I.A. Makarov for hosting there.

The paper was prepared in part within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and was partially supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5–100’.

We are indepted to the participants of the research seminars “Logical Problems in Computer Science” and “Algorithmic Problems in Algebra and Logic” at Moscow (Lomonosov) University, in particular, S.I. Adian, L.D. Beklemishev, V.N. Krupski, I.I. Osipov, F.N. Pakhomov, M.R. Pentus, D.S. Shamkanov, I.B. Shapirovsky, V.B. Shehtman, A.A. Sorokin, T.L. Yavorskaya, and others for fruitful discussions and suggestions that allowed us to improve our presentation significantly.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrusci, V.M.: A comparison between Lambek syntactic calculus and intuitionistic linear propositional logic. Zeitschr. für math. Logik und Grundl. der Math. (Math. Logic Q.) 36, 11–15 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buszkowski, W.: Some decision problems in the theory of syntactic categories. Zeitschr. für math. Logik und Grundl. der Math. (Math. Logic Q.) 28, 539–548 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buszkowski, W.: Lambek calculus with nonlogical axioms. In: Language and Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 168, pp. 77–93 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carpenter, B.: Type-Logical Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Girard, J.-Y.: Linear logic. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 50(1), 1–102 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanazawa, M., Salvati, S.: The string-meaning relations definable by Lambek grammars and context-free grammars. In: Morrill, G., Nederhof, M.-J. (eds.) Formal Grammar 2012 and 2013. LNCS, vol. 8036, pp. 191–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39998-5_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanovich, M., Kuznetsov, S., Scedrov, A.: On Lambek’s restriction in the presence of exponential modalities. In: Artemov, S., Nerode, A. (eds.) LFCS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9537, pp. 146–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27683-0_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuznetsov, S.L.: On translating context-free grammars into Lambek grammars. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 290, 63–69 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lambek, J.: The mathematics of sentence structure. Am. Math. Mon. 65(3), 154–170 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lambek, J.: On the calculus of syntactic types. In: Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics: Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, vol. 12, pp. 166–178. AMS (1961)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lincoln, P., Mitchell, J., Scedrov, A., Shankar, N.: Decision problems for propositional linear logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 56(1–3), 239–311 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morrill, G., Valentín, O.: Computational coverage of TLG: nonlinearity. In: Proceedings of NLCS 2015. EPiC Series, vol. 32, pp. 51–63 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pentus, M.: Product-free Lambek calculus and context-free grammars. J. Symbolic Logic 62(2), 648–660 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pentus, M.: Lambek calculus is NP-complete. Theor. Comput. Sci. 357, 186–201 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pentus, M.: Complexity of the Lambek calculus and its fragments. Adv. Modal Logic 8, 310–329 (2010). College PublicationsMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savateev, Y.: Lambek grammars with one division are decidable in polynomial time. In: Hirsch, E.A., Razborov, A.A., Semenov, A., Slissenko, A. (eds.) Computer Science – Theory and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5010, pp. 273–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-79709-8_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savateev, Y.: Product-free Lambek calculus is NP-complete. In: Artemov, S., Nerode, A. (eds.) LFCS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5407, pp. 380–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92687-0_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yetter, D.N.: Quantales and (noncommutative) linear logic. J. Symbolic Logic 55(1), 41–64 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Kanovich
    • 1
    • 4
  • Stepan Kuznetsov
    • 2
  • Andre Scedrov
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Steklov Mathematical InstituteMoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations