Inversion Principles and Introduction Rules

  • Peter Milne
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 7)


Following Gentzen’s practice, borrowed from intuitionist logic, Prawitz takes the introduction rule(s) for a connective to show how to prove a formula with the connective dominant. He proposes an inversion principle to make more exact Gentzen’s talk of deriving elimination rules from introduction rules. Here I look at some recent work pairing Gentzen’s introduction rules with general elimination rules. After outlining a way to derive Gentzen’s own elimination rules from his introduction rules, I give a very different account of introduction rules in order to pair them with general elimination rules in such a way that elimination rules can be read off introduction rules, introduction rules can be read off elimination rules, and both sets of rules can be read off classical truth-tables. Extending to include quantifiers, we obtain a formulation of classical first-order logic with the subformula property.


Introduction rules Elimination rules General elimination rules Inversion principle Sequent calculus 


  1. Belnap, N., Jr. (1962). Tonk, plonk and plink. Analysis, 22, 130–134 (Reprinted in Philosophical Logic by P. F. Strawson (ed.) (1967). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 132–137).Google Scholar
  2. Dummett, M. A. E. (2000). Elements of intuitionism (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press (1st ed. 1977).Google Scholar
  3. Dummett, M. A. E. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  4. Dyckhoff, R. (2009). Generalised elimination rules and harmony, talk given at St Andrews. Retrieved May 26, 2009,
  5. Francez, N., & Dyckhoff, R. (2012). A note on harmony. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41, 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gentzen, G. (1934–1935). Untersuchungen über das logische schließen. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39, 176–210, 405–431. (English translation by Manfred Szabo as ‘Investigations into Logical Deduction’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 1, 1964, 288–306, 2, 1965, 204–218, also in Szabo, M.E. (ed.) (1969). The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen (pp. 68–131). North-Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  7. Gentzen, G. (1936). Die Widerspruchfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie. Mathematische Annalen, 112, 493–565. (English translation by Manfred Szabo as The Consistency of Elementary Number Theory in Szabo, M. E. (ed.) (1969). The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen (pp. 132–201). North-Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  8. Hazen, A. (1995). Is even minimal negation constructive? Analysis, 55, 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heyting, A. (1930). Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen logik und mathematik. In P. Mancosu (ed.). Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse (pp. 42–65). (English translation, (1998) ‘The formal rules of intuitionist logic’, In P. Mancosu (ed.). From Brouwer to Hilbert: the debate in the foundations of mathematics in the 1920s (pp. 311–328). Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  10. Kurbis, N. (2008). Stable harmony. In M. Peliš (Ed.), The logica yearbook 2007 (pp. 87–96). Institue of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague: Filosofia.Google Scholar
  11. von Kutschera, F. (1968). Die vollständigkeit des operatorensystems \(\lbrace \) \(\lnot \), \(\wedge \), \(\vee \), \(\rightarrow \) \(\rbrace \) für die intuitionistische aussagenlogik im rahmen der gentzensemantik. Archiv für Math Logik Grundlagenforschung, 11, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lemmon, E. (1965). A further note on natural deduction. Mind, 74, 594–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milne, P. (2007). Existence, freedom, identity, and the logic of abstractionist realism. Mind, 116, 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milne, P. (2008). A formulation of first-order classical logic in natural deduction with the subformula property. In M. Peliš (Ed.), The logica yearbook 2007 (pp. 97–110). Institue of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague: Filosofia.Google Scholar
  15. Milne, P. (2010). Subformula and separation properties in natural deduction via small Kripke models. Review of Symbolic Logic, 3, 175–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milne, P. (2012). Inferring, splicing, and the Stoic analysis of argument. In O. T. Hjortland & C. Dutilh Novaes (Ed.), Insolubles and consequences: Essays in honour of Stephen Read (pp. 135–154). College Publications: London.Google Scholar
  17. Mondadori, M. (1988). On the notion of classical proof. In C. Cellucci & G. Sambin (Eds.), Atti del congresso temi e prospettive della logica e della filosofial della scienza contemporanee, Cesana 7–10 gennaio 1987 (Vol. 1, pp. 211–214). Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.Google Scholar
  18. Moriconi, E., & Tesconi, L. (2008). On inversion principles. History and Philosophy of Logic, 29, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Negri, S., & von Plato, J. (2001). Structural proof theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (with an appendix by Arne Ranta).Google Scholar
  20. Negri, S. (2002). Varieties of linear calculi. Jounral of Philosophical Logic, 31, 569–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. von Plato, J. (2001). Natural deduction with general elimination rules. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 40, 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. von Plato, J. (2008). Gentzen’s proof of normalization for natural deduction. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 14, 240–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prawitz, D. (1965). Natural deduction: A proof-theoretical study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell (reprinted with new preface, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006).Google Scholar
  24. Prawitz, D. (1971). Ideas and results in proof theory. In J. E. Fenstad (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (Vol. 63). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  25. Prawitz, D. (1978). Proofs and the meaning and completeness of the logical constants. In J. Hintikka, I. Niiniluoto, & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic: Proceedings of the Fourth Scandinavian Logic Symposium and of the First Soviet-Finnish Logic Conference, Jyväskylä, Finland, June 29-July 6, 1976, Synthese Library (Vol. 122, pp. 25–40). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  26. Prawitz, D. (1967). A note on existential instantiation. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 32, 81–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prawitz, D. (2006). Meaning approached via proofs. Synthese, 148, 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Queiroz, R. J. (2008). On reduction rules, meaning-as-use, and proof-theoretic semantics. Studia Logica, 90, 211–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Read, S. (2000). Harmony and autonomy in classical logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Read, S. (2004). Identity and harmony. Analysis, 64, 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Read, S. (2010). General-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandqvist, T. (2012). The subformula property in natural deduction established constructively. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5, 710–719.Google Scholar
  33. Schroeder-Heister, P. (1984). A natural extension of natural deduction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49, 1284–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schroeder-Heister, P. (1984). Generalized rules for quantifiers and the completeness of the intuitionistic operators & \(\vee \), \(\rightarrow \), \(\curlywedge \), \(\forall \), \(\exists \). In M. Richter., E. Börger., W. Oberschelp., B. Schinzel., W. Thomas (Eds.), Computation and Proof Theory. Proceedings of the Logic Colloquium held in Aachen, July 18–23, 1983, Part II, Lecture Notes in Mathematics (pp. 399–426, vol 1104). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Schroeder-Heister, P. (2004). On the notion of assumption in logical systems. In: R. Bluhm & C. Nimtz (Eds.). Selected Papers Contributed to the Sections of GAP5, Fifth International Congress of the Society for Analytical Philosophy (pp. 27–48), Bielefeld. Paderborn: Mentis Verlag. Retrieved 22–26 Sept 2003, from
  36. Schroeder-Heister, P. (2014). Generalized elimination inferences, higher-level rules, and the implications-as-rules interpretation of the sequent calculus. In L. C. Pereira, & E. H. Haeusler, & V. de Paiva (Eds.), Advances in natural deduction: A Celebration of Dag Prawitz’s Work (pp. 1–29). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London.Google Scholar
  37. Suppes, P. (1957). Introduction to logic. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.Google Scholar
  38. Tennant, N. (1978). Natural logic (1st ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (Reprinted in paperback with corrections, 1991).Google Scholar
  39. Tennant, N. (1992). Autologic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tichý, P. (1988). The foundations of Frege’s logic. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Wansing, H. (2006). Connectives stranger than tonk. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35, 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zucker, J. I., & Tragesser, R. S. (1978). The adequacy problem for inferential logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 7, 501–516.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts and Humanities - Law and PhilosophyUniversity of StirlingScotlandUK

Personalised recommendations