Abstract
Eight distinct rules for implication in the antecedent for the sequent calculus, one of which being Gentzen’s standard rule, can be derived by successively applying a number of cuts to the logical ground sequent A → B, A ⇒ B. A naive translation into natural deduction collapses four of those rules onto the standard implication elimination rule, and the remaining four rules onto the general elimination rule. This collapse is due to the fact that the difference between a formula occurring in the succedent of a premise of a sequent calculus rule and that formula instead occurring in the antecedent of the conclusion cannot be adequately expressed in the framework of natural deduction. In contrast to this, the difference between a formula occurring in the succedent of the conclusion of a sequent calculus rule and that formula instead occurring in the antecedent of a premise corresponds exactly to the distinction between the standard implication elimination rule and its general counterpart. This incongruity can be remedied by introducing a notational facility that requires of the particular premise of a rule to which it is attached to be an assumption, i.e., to prevent it from being the conclusion of another rule application. Applying this facility to implication elimination results in eight distinct rules that correspond exactly to the eight sequent calculus rules. These eight rules are presented and discussed in detail. It turns out that a natural deduction calculus (for positive implication logic) that employs the rule corresponding to the standard left implication rule of the sequent calculus as well as a rule for explicit substitution can be seen as a natural deduction style sequent calculus.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abadi, M., L. Cardelli, P.-L. Curien, and J.-J. Lévy (1991). Explicit substitutions. Journal of Functional Programming 1/4, 375–416.
Arndt, M. (2019). Eight inference rules for implication. Studia Logica.
Arndt, M. and L. Tesconi (2014). Principles of explicit composition. In: Second Pisa Colloquium in Logic, Language and Epistemology, Proceedings. Ed. By E. Moriconi. ETS, 19–67.
Avron, A. (1990). Gentzenizing Schroeder-Heister’s natural extension of natural deduction. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31, 127–135.
Dyckhoff, R. (1987). Implementing a simple proof assistant. In: Workshop on Programming for Logic Teaching. Ed. by J. Derrick and H. A. Lewis. Centre for Theoretical Computer Science, University of Leeds, 49–59.
Espírito Santo, J. (2007). Completing Herbelin’s programme. In: Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, 8th International Conference, Proceedings, 118–132.
Gentzen, G. (1933). Über die Existenz unabhängiger Axiomensysteme zu unendlichen Satzsystemen. Mathematische Annalen 107, 329–350.
Gentzen, G. (1935). Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I-II. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39, 176–210, 405–431.
Girard, J.-Y., Y. Lafont, and P. Taylor (1989). Proofs and Types. Cambridge University Press.
Hertz, P. (1922). Über Axiomensysteme für beliebige Satzsysteme. I. Teil. Sätze ersten Grades. Mathematische Annalen 87, 246–269.
Hertz, P. (1923). Über Axiomensysteme für beliebige Satzsysteme. II. Teil. Sätze höheren Grades. Mathematische Annalen 89, 76–100.
Hertz, P. (1929). Über Axiomensysteme für beliebige Satzsysteme. Mathematische Annalen 101, 457–514.
Negri, S. and J. von Plato (2001). Structural Proof Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Pfenning, F. (2007). On a logical foundation for explicit substitutions. In: Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications. Ed. by S. R. Della Rocca. Springer.
Prawitz, D. (1965). Natural Deduction. A Proof-Theoretic Study. Almqvist &Wiksell.
Prawitz, D. (1979). Proofs and the meaning and completeness of the logical constants. In: Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic. Ed. by J. Hintikka, I. Niiniluoto, and E. Saarinen. Reidel, 25–40.
Prawitz, D. (2015). A note on how to extend Gentzen’s second consistency proof to a proof of normalization for first order arithmetic. In: Gentzen’s Centenary: The Quest for Consistency. Springer.
Read, S. (2010). General-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39, 557–576.
Restall, G. (2014). Normal proofs, cut free derivations and structural rules. Studia Logica 102, 1143–1166.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (1982). Logische Konstanten und Regeln. Zur Deutung von Aussagenoperatoren. Conceptus 16, 45–59.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (1984). A natural extension of natural deduction. Journal of Symbolic Logic 49, 1284–1300.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2009). Sequent calculi and bidirectional natural deduction: on the proper basis of proof-theoretic semantics. In: The Logica Yearbook 2008. Ed. by M. Peliš.College Publications, 245–259.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2010). Generalized elimination inferences, higher-level rules, and the implicationsas-rules interpretation of the sequent calculus. In: Advances in Natural Deduction. Ed. by E. H. Haeusler, L. C. Pereira, and V. de Paiva. Springer.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2011). Implications-as-rules vs. implications-as-links: an alternative implicationleft schema for the sequent calculus. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40, 95–101.
Smullyan, R. M. (1968). Analytic cut. Journal of Symbolic Logic 33, 560–564.
Tennant, N. (1992). Autologic. Edinburgh University Press.
Smullyan, R. M. (2002). Ultimate normal forms for parallelized natural deductions. Logic Journal of the IGPL 10, 299–337.
Tesconi, L. (2010). Some not so obvious remarks about the cut rule. In: First Pisa Colloquium in Logic, Language and Epistemology. Ed. by C. Marletti. ETS, 116–132.
Troelstra, A. S. and H. Schwichtenberg (1996). Basic Proof Theory. Vol. 43. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press.
van Dalen, D. (1980). Logic and Sructure. Springer.
von Plato, J. (2001). Natural deduction with general elimination rules. Archive for Mathematical Logic 40/7, 541–567.
von Plato, J. (2003a). Gentzen’s proof systems: byproducts in a work of genius. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 18/3, 313–367.
von Plato, J. (2003b). Translations from natural deduction to sequent calculus. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 49, 435–443.
Zimmermann, E. (2007). Substructural logics in natural deduction. Logic Journal of the IGPL 15, 211–232.
Zucker, J. (1974). The correspondence between cut-elimination and normalization. Annals of Mathematical Logic 7, 1–112.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. If you remix, transform, or build upon this chapter or a part thereof, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arndt, M. (2024). Eight Rules for Implication Elimination. In: Piecha, T., Wehmeier, K.F. (eds) Peter Schroeder-Heister on Proof-Theoretic Semantics. Outstanding Contributions to Logic, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50981-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50981-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-50980-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-50981-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)