Advertisement

On Lambek’s Restriction in the Presence of Exponential Modalities

  • Max Kanovich
  • Stepan Kuznetsov
  • Andre Scedrov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9537)

Abstract

The Lambek calculus can be considered as a version of non-commutative intuitionistic linear logic. One of the interesting features of the Lambek calculus is the so-called “Lambek’s restriction,” that is, the antecedent of any provable sequent should be non-empty. In this paper we discuss ways of extending the Lambek calculus with the linear logic exponential modality while keeping Lambek’s restriction. We present several versions of the Lambek calculus extended with exponential modalities and prove that those extensions are undecidable, even if we take only one of the two divisions provided by the Lambek calculus.

Keywords

Lambek calculus Linear logic Exponential modalities Lambek’s restriction Undecidability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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 of Russia (grant NŠ 1423.2014.1). Max Kanovich’s research was partly supported by EPSRC (grant EP/K040049/1).

This research was initiated during the visit by Stepan Kuznetsov to the University of Pennsylvania, which was supported in part by that institution. Further work was done during the stay of Kanovich and Scedrov at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, which was supported in part by that institution. We would like to thank Sergei O. Kuznetsov and Ilya A. Makarov for hosting us.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrusci, V.M.: A comparison between Lambek syntactic calculus and intuitionistic linear propositional logic. Zeitschr. für math. Logik and Grundl. der Math. (Math. Logic Quart.) 36, 11–15 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andreoli, J.-M.: Logical programming with focusing proofs in linear logic. J. Log. Comput. 2, 297–347 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buszkowski, W.: Some decision problems in the theory of syntactic categories. Zeitschr. für math. Logik und Grundl. der Math. (Math. Logic Quart.) 28, 539–548 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carpenter, B.: Type-logical semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Girard, J.-Y.: Linear logic. Theor. Comp. Sci. 50(1), 1–102 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Groote, P.: On the expressive power of the Lambek calculus extended with a structural modality. In: Casadio, C., et al. (eds.) Language and Grammar. CSLI Lect. Notes, vol. 168, pp. 95–111. Stanford University, Stanford (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanazawa, M.: Lambek calculus: Recognizing power and complexity. In: Gerbrandy, J., et al. (eds.) JFAK. Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Vossiuspers, Amsterdam Univ. Press (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanovich, M.: The expressive power of modalized purely implicational calculi. CSLI Report. Stanford University (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lambek, J.: The mathematics of sentence structure. Amer. Math. Monthly 65(3), 154–170 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lambek, J.: On the calculus of syntactic types. In: Jakobson (ed.) Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects. Proc. Symposia Appl. Math., vol. 12, pp. 166–178. AMS, Providence, RI (1961)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lincoln, P., Mitchell, J., Scedrov, A., Shankar, N.: Decision problems for propositional linear logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 56, 239–311 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moot, R., Retoré, C. (eds.): The Logic of Categorial Grammars. LNCS, vol. 6850. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morrill, G., Leslie, N., Hepple, M., Barry, G.: Categorial deductions and structural operations. In: Barry, G., Morrill, G. (eds.) Studies in Categorial Grammar. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, vol. 5, pp. 1–21. Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morril, G.: Categorial grammar. Logical syntax, semantics, and processing. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nigam, V., Miller, D.: Focusing in linear meta-logic. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 507–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nigam, V., Miller, D.: Algorithmic specifications in linear logic with subexponentials. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Principles and practice of declarative programming, pp. 129–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pentus, M.: Lambek grammars are context-free. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 429–433. IEEE Computer Society Press (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pentus, M.: Lambek calculus is NP-complete. Theor. Comput. Sci. 357, 186–201 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Savateev, Yu.: Algorithmic complexity of fragments of the Lambek calculus (in Russian). Ph.D. thesis. Moscow State University (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yetter, D.N.: Quantales and (noncommutative) linear logic. J. Sym. Log. 55(1), 41–64 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Kanovich
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stepan Kuznetsov
    • 4
  • Andre Scedrov
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Queen Mary, University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  4. 4.Steklov Mathematical Institute, RASMoscowRussia
  5. 5.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations