Extracting constructive content from classical logic via control-like reductions

  • Franco Barbanera
  • Stefano Berardi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 664)


Recently there has been much interest in the problem of finding the computational content of classical reasoning. One of the most appealing directions for the computer scientist to tackle such a problem is the relation which has been established between classical logic and lambda calculi with control operators, like Felleisen's control operator C. In this paper we introduce a typed lambda calculus with the C operator corresponding to Peano Arithmetic, and a set of reduction rules related to the ones of the usual control calculi with C. We show how these rules, which are proved to be strongly normalizing, can be used to extract witnesses from proofs of 1 0 sentences in Peano Arithmetic.


Classical Logic Main Branch Reduction Rule Natural Deduction Peano Arithmetic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barbanera F., Berardi S. A constructive valuation interpretation for classical logic and its use in witness extraction. Proceedings of Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming (CAAP), LNCS 581, Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbanera F., Berardi S. Continuations and simple types: a strong normalization result. Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Continuations. Report No STAN-CS-92-1426 Stanford University. San Francisco, June 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coquand T. A Game-theoric semantic of Classical Logic, 1992, submitted to JSLGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Felleisen, R. Ilieb, The revised report on the syntactic theories of sequential control. Technical report 100, University of Rice, Houston, 1989. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Felleisen, D. Friedman, E. Kohlbecker, and B. Duba, Reasoning with continuations. In ”Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science”, pages 131–141,1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman H. Classically and intuitionistically provably recursive functions. In Scott D.S. and Muller G.H. editors, Higher Set Theory, vol.699 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 21–28. Springer Verlag, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Girard Y.J. A new constructive logic: Classical Logic, in MSCS, n. 1, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Timothy G. Griffin. A formulas-as-types notion of control. In ”Conference Record of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages”, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kreisel G. Mathematical significance of consistency proofs. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23:155–182, 1958.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murthy C. Extracting constructive content from classical proofs. Ph.d. thesis, Department of Computer science, Cornell University, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parigot M. lambda-mu-calculus: an algorithmic interpretation of classical natural deduction. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prawitz D. Validity and normalizability of proofs in 1-st and 2-nd order classical and intuitionistic logic. In Atti del I Congresso Italiano di Logica, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 11–36, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franco Barbanera
    • 1
  • Stefano Berardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversita' di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations