A procedure for automatic proof nets construction

  • Didier Galmiche
  • Guy Perrier
Session 2: Non-Resolution Theorem Proving I
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 624)


In this paper, we consider the multiplicative fragment of linear logic (MLL) from an automated deduction point of view. Before to use this new logic to make logic programming or to program with proofs, a better comprehension of the proof construction process in this framework is necessary. We propose a new algorithm to construct automatically a proof net for a given sequent in MLL and its proofs of termination, correctness and completeness. It can be seen as an implementation oriented way to consider automated deduction in linear logic.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Abramsky. Computational interpretations of linear logic. technical report, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London SW7 2Bz, England, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.M. Andreoli and R. Pareschi. Logic programming with sequent systems: A linear logic approach. In Int. Workshop on Extensions of Logic Programming, LNCS 475, pages 1–30, Tübingen, Germany, December 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Andrews. Theorem proving via general mating. Journal of ACM, 28(2):193–214, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Bellin. Proof nets for multiplicative and additive linear logic. Technical Report ECS-LFCS 91-161, Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, May 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Bibel. On matrices with connections. Journal of ACM, 28(4):633–645, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Danos and L. Regnier. The structure of multiplicatives. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 28:181–203, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Galmiche. Constructive system for automatic program synthesis. Theoretical Computer Science, 71(2):227–239, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Galmiche and G. Perrier. Automated deduction in additive and multiplicative linear logic. In Logic at Tver '92, Logical Foundations of Computer Science Symposium, Tver, Russia, July 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50(1):1–102, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.-Y. Girard. Towards a geometry of interaction. In J.-W. Gray and A. Scedrov, editors, AMS Conference on categories in computer science and logic, pages 69–108, Boulder-Colorado, June 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.-Y. Girard, P. Taylor, and Y. Lafont. Proofs and Types. Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. S. Hodas and D. Miller. Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic. In 6th IEEE symposium Logic in Computer Science, pages 32–42, Amsterdam, July 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Lincoln, J. Mitchell, A. Scedrov, and N. Shankar. Decision problems for prepositional linear logic. In 31st annual IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, St-Louis, Missouri, October 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Masseron, C. Tollu, and J. Vauzeilles. Generating plans in linear logic. In Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS 472, pages 63–75, Bangalore, India, December 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U. Solitro. A typed calculus based on a fragment of linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 68:333–342, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.-S. Troelstra and D. Van Dalen. Constructivism in Mathematics, an Introduction. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Didier Galmiche
    • 1
  • Guy Perrier
    • 1
  1. 1.Lorraine Campus ScientifiqueGRIN - CNRS - INRIAVandœuvre-les-Nancy CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations