A Triple Correspondence in Canonical Calculi: Strong Cut-Elimination, Coherence, and Non-deterministic Semantics
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.
KeywordsAtomic Formula Predicate Symbol Structural Rule Sequent Calculus Canonical System
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Avron, A., Zamansky, A.: Canonical calculi with (n,k)-ary quantifiers. Journal of Logical Methods in Computer Science (forthcming, 2008)Google 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
- 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
- 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
- 15.Shroeder-Heister, P.: Natural deduction calculi with rules of higher levels. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 275–276 (1985)Google Scholar