DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Proof Theory of Conditional Logics Marianna Girlando

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Proof Theory of Conditional Logics Marianna Girlando On the Proof Theory of Conditional Logics Marianna Girlando To cite this version: Marianna Girlando. On the Proof Theory of Conditional Logics. Logic in Computer Science [cs.LO]. Aix-Marseille Universite; Helsinki University, 2019. English. tel-02077109 HAL Id: tel-02077109 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02077109 Submitted on 22 Mar 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. AIX-MARSEILLE UNIVERSITE´ UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI ED184 { MATHEMATIQUES´ ET FACULTY OF ARTS INFORMATIQUE DOCTORAL SCHOOL IN LABORATOIRE D'INFORMATI- HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL QUE ET DES SYSTEMES SCIENCES On the Proof Theory of Conditional Logics Marianna GIRLANDO Soutenue le 8/02/2019 { Discussed on 8/02/2019 Aix-Marseille Universit´e Nicola OLIVETTI Aix-Marseille Universit´e Directeur de th`ese Sara NEGRI University of Helsinki Co-directeur de th`ese George METCALFE University of Bern Rapporteur Sonja SMETS University of Amsterdam Rapporteur Didier GALMICHE Universit´ede Lorraine Examinateur Philippe BESNARD Universit´ePaul Sabatier Examinateur Luigi SANTOCANALE Aix-Marseille Universit´e Examinateur Heta PYRHONEN¨ University of Helsinki Examinateur University of Helsinki Sara NEGRI University of Helsinki Supervisor, Custos Nicola OLIVETTI Aix-Marseille Universit´e Supervisor George METCALFE University of Bern Pre-examier Sonja SMETS University of Amsterdam Pre-examiner, Opponent Heta PYRHONEN¨ University of Helsinki Faculty representative Filipe PEREIRA DA SILVA University of Helsinki Faculty representative Abstract This thesis can be ideally placed at the intersection of three research topics: conditional logics, proof theory and neighbourhood semantics. The family of logics under scope stems from the works of Stalnaker and Lewis, and extends classical propositional logic by means of a two-place modal operator, which expresses a fine-grained notion of condi- tionality. The semantics of these logics is modularly defined in terms of neighbourhood models. The research aim is to investigate the proof theory of conditional logics, by defining sequent calculi for them. The proof systems introduced are extensions of Gentzen's sequent calculus; they are either labelled, defined by enriching the language, or internal, which add structural connectives to the sequents. Moreover, the calculi are standard: they are composed of a finite number of rules, each displaying a fixed number of pre- misses. The thesis is organized in six chapters. Chapters 1 contains an axiomatic and seman- tic overview of conditional logics, while Chapter 2 is a short introduction to proof theory. The original contributions to the subject are presented in chapters 3 { 6. Chapter 3 introduces labelled calculi based on neighbourhood models for preferential conditional logics, and Chapter 4 presents different internal proof systems covering counterfactual logics, a subfamily of preferential logics. Chapter 5 analyses the relationship between proof systems by presenting a mapping between a labelled and an internal calculus. Fi- nally, the proof-theoretic methods developed for conditional logics are applied in chapter 6 to a multi-agent epistemic logic. i R´esum´e La th`esese place `al'intersection de trois sujets de recherche : logiques conditionnelles, th´eoriede la d´emonstrationet s´emantique de voisinage. La famille de logiques condition- nelles consid´er´eesprovient d`esouvrages de Stalnaker et Lewis. Elle est une extension de la logique classique propositionnelle avec un op´erateurmodal `adeux places, qui ex- prime une notion affin´eede conditionnalit´e. La s´emantique de ces logiques est d´efinie en termes de mod`elesde voisinage. Le but de la recherche est d'´etudier la th´eoriede la d´emonstrationdes logiques condi- tionnelles, en pr´ecisant leur calculs des sequents. Les calculs d´efinissont des extensions du calcul des sequents de Gentzen ; ils sont ´etiquet´es,c'est `adire d´efinisen enrichissant le langage, ou internes, qui rajoutent des connecteurs structurels aux sequents. La th`eseest organis´eeen six chapitres. Le chapitre 1 pr´esente les axiomes et la s´emantique des logiques conditionnelles et le chapitre 2 introduit la th´eoriede la d´emonstration. Les contributions originelles au sujet sont trait´eesdans les chapitres 3 { 6. Le chapitre 3 introduit des calculs de sequents ´etiquet´esbas´es sur la s´emantique de voisinage pour les logiques conditionnelles pr´ef´erentielles. Le chapitre 4 pr´esente diff´erents syst`emesinternes de calcul pour les logiques counterfactuelles, une sous-famille des logiques pr´ef´erentielles. Le chapitre 5 analyse la relation parmi les syst`emesde preuve en pr´esentant les deux c^ot´esd'une traduction entre un calcul ´etiquet´eet un cal- cul interne. Finalement, au chapitre 6, les m´ethodes de la th´eoriede la d´emonstration conditionnelle sont appliqu´ees`aune logique ´epist´emiquemulti-agente. ii Yhteenveto T¨am¨av¨ait¨oskirjasijoittuu ideaalisesti kolmen tutkimusaiheen risteykseen: konditiona- alien logiikka, todistusteoria, ja ymp¨arist¨osemantiikka. Katettujen logiikoiden perhe periytyy Stalnakein ja Lewisin t¨oist¨aja laajentaa klassillista lauselogiikkaa kaksipaikkai- sen modaalioperaattorin kautta. Se ilmaisee hienojakoisen konditionaalisuuden k¨asit- teen. N¨aidenlogiikoiden semantiikka m¨a¨aritell¨a¨anmodulaarisesti ymp¨arist¨osemantiikan termein. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on selvitt¨a¨akonditionaalien logiikan todistusteoriaa m¨a¨arit- telem¨all¨aniille sekvenssikalkyyleita. Esitellyt todistussysteemit ovat Gentzenin sekvens- sikalkyylin laajennuksia; ne ovat joko merkeill¨avarustettuja, joihin p¨a¨adyt¨a¨ankielen rikastuksella, tai sis¨aisi¨a,joihin p¨a¨adyt¨a¨anlis¨a¨am¨all¨asekvensseihin rakenteellisia kon- nektiiveja. N¨am¨alaajennukset ovat my¨osstandardikalkyyleja: ne muodostuvat ¨a¨arellis- est¨am¨a¨ar¨ast¨as¨a¨ant¨oj¨a,joissa jokaisessa on kiinte¨am¨a¨ar¨apremissej¨a. V¨ait¨oskirjamuodostuu kuudesta kappaleesta. Kappale 1 sis¨alt¨a¨aaksiomattisen ja semanttisen katsauksen konditionaalien logiikkaan, ja kappale 2 on taas lyhyt johda- tus todistusteoriaan. Uudet tutkimuspanokset aiheeseen on esitetty kappaleissa 3-6. Kappale 3 esitt¨a¨ans. merkityt sekvenssikalkyylit joiden perustana on preferentiaalis- ten konditionaalien logiikan ymp¨arist¨omallit,kappale 4 esitt¨a¨aerilaisia sis¨aisi¨atodis- tussysteemej¨ajotka kattavat kontrafaktuaalien logiikat, jotka ovat preferentiaalisten logiikoiden alaperhe. Kappale 5 analysoi eri todistussysteemien v¨alisi¨asuhteita merkki- kalkyyylien ja sis¨aistenkalkyylien v¨alisen kuvauksen kautta. Kuudennessa ja viimeisess¨a kappaleessa sovelletaan konditionaalien logiikalle kehitettyj¨atodistusteoreettisia metode- ja useamman agentin episteemiseen logiikkaan. iii iv Acknowledgements This thesis was written in the course of three years within an interdisciplinary agreement between the University of Aix-Marseille and the University of Helsinki. I am deeply grateful to both my supervisors, Nicola Olivetti and Sara Negri, for their expertise, advice and support throughout the thesis. It goes without saying that their contribution has been fundamental to this work, and to the general welfare of my Ph.D. A special thanks goes to the people whom I have worked with, most notably Bj¨orn Lellmann, Gian Luca Pozzato and Vincent Risch. A significant part of the results presented in this thesis comes from their ideas and initiative. A particular thanks to Bj¨orn,for his proof-theoretic skills and TEX abilities. I wish to thank the reviewers of this thesis, Sonja Smets and George Metcalfe, who kindly accepted to go through the two-hundred-pages manuscript. Their accurate re- ports were extremely useful in the final stages of the revision process. A cotutelle agreement has to deal with a great amount of bureaucracy. The guidance and patience of doctoral schools and administrative offices were essential to find my way in the maze. For Marseille, thanks to Nadia Creignou and Sonia Asseum; for Helsinki, my thanks to Anniina Sj¨oblomand Jutta Kajander. I should also mention that the Ph.D. grant has been founded by the LabEx Archim`ede, and that the research work has been partially supported by the Project TICAMORE ANR-16-CE91-0002-01 and the Suomen Akatemia Project Modalities and conditionals: Systematic and historical studies. Next, a great thanks to my friends from the proof-theory community, for the logic- related and logic-unrelated discussions and their precious advice. I am especially grateful to Elaine, Alberto, Charles, Andreas, to the people in Vienna and to the members of the P.T. Erasmus. A special thanks to Tiziano, my brother-in-Ph.D. I probably wouldn't have survived without my friends in Marseille and Helsinki. Thanks to Rasa and Andrea for the Vieux-Port aperitifs, to Paolo, for the Saint-Charles sessions, to Federico and Belen, for the Cours Julien company, and to Elena, Anna, Guillaume and the Luminy people for π, pies and parties. Thanks to Martina, for the moral discussions, to Fra and Paolo, my first Marseille friends, and to Giulio, for the dinners. Thanks to Niko, for the coffees, and to Hannu, for the apartment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The L-Framework Structural Proof Theory in Rewriting Logic
    The L-Framework Structural Proof Theory in Rewriting Logic Carlos Olarte Joint work with Elaine Pimentel and Camilo Rocha. Avispa 25 Años Logical Frameworks Consider the following inference rule (tensor in Linear Logic): Γ ⊢ ∆ ⊢ F G i Γ; ∆ ⊢ F i G R Horn Clauses (Prolog) prove Upsilon (F tensor G) :- split Upsilon Gamma Delta, prove Gamma F, prove Delta G . Rewriting Logic (Maude) rl [tensorR] : Gamma, Delta |- F x G => (Gamma |- F) , (Delta |-G) . Gap between what is represented and its representation Rewriting Logic can rightfully be said to have “-representational distance” as a semantic and logical framework. (José Meseguer) Carlos Olarte, Joint work with Elaine Pimentel and Camilo Rocha. 2 Where is the Magic ? Rewriting logic: Equational theory + rewriting rules a Propositional logic op empty : -> Context [ctor] . op _,_ : Context Context -> Context [assoc comm id: empty] . eq F:Formula, F:Formula = F:Formula . --- idempotency a Linear Logic (no weakening / contraction) op _,_ : Context Context -> Context [assoc comm id: empty] . a Lambek’s logics without exchange op _,_ : Context Context -> Context . The general point is that, by choosing the right equations , we can capture any desired structural axiom. (José Meseguer) Carlos Olarte, Joint work with Elaine Pimentel and Camilo Rocha. 3 Determinism vs Non-Determinism Back to the tensor rule: Γ ⊢ F ∆ ⊢ G Γ; F1; F2 ⊢ G iR iL Γ; ∆ ⊢ F i G Γ; F1 i F2 ⊢ G Equations Deterministic (invertible) rules that can be eagerly applied. eq [tensorL] : Gamma, F1 * F2 |- G = Gamma, F1 , F2 |- G . Rules Non-deterministic (non-invertible) rules where backtracking is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Proof Theory
    Notes on Proof Theory Master 1 “Informatique”, Univ. Paris 13 Master 2 “Logique Mathématique et Fondements de l’Informatique”, Univ. Paris 7 Damiano Mazza November 2016 1Last edit: March 29, 2021 Contents 1 Propositional Classical Logic 5 1.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 5 1.2 Atomic negation . 8 2 Sequent Calculus 10 2.1 Two-sided formulation . 10 2.2 One-sided formulation . 13 3 First-order Quantification 16 3.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 16 3.2 Sequent calculus . 19 3.3 Ultrafilters . 21 4 Completeness 24 4.1 Exhaustive search . 25 4.2 The completeness proof . 30 5 Undecidability and Incompleteness 33 5.1 Informal computability . 33 5.2 Incompleteness: a road map . 35 5.3 Logical theories . 38 5.4 Arithmetical theories . 40 5.5 The incompleteness theorems . 44 6 Cut Elimination 47 7 Intuitionistic Logic 53 7.1 Sequent calculus . 55 7.2 The relationship between intuitionistic and classical logic . 60 7.3 Minimal logic . 65 8 Natural Deduction 67 8.1 Sequent presentation . 68 8.2 Natural deduction and sequent calculus . 70 8.3 Proof tree presentation . 73 8.3.1 Minimal natural deduction . 73 8.3.2 Intuitionistic natural deduction . 75 1 8.3.3 Classical natural deduction . 75 8.4 Normalization (cut-elimination in natural deduction) . 76 9 The Curry-Howard Correspondence 80 9.1 The simply typed l-calculus . 80 9.2 Product and sum types . 81 10 System F 83 10.1 Intuitionistic second-order propositional logic . 83 10.2 Polymorphic types . 84 10.3 Programming in system F ...................... 85 10.3.1 Free structures .
    [Show full text]
  • AMATH 731: Applied Functional Analysis Lecture Notes
    AMATH 731: Applied Functional Analysis Lecture Notes Sumeet Khatri November 24, 2014 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................... v List of Theorems ................................................ ix List of Definitions ................................................ xii Preface ....................................................... xiii 1 Review of Real Analysis .......................................... 1 1.1 Convergence and Cauchy Sequences...............................1 1.2 Convergence of Sequences and Cauchy Sequences.......................1 2 Measure Theory ............................................... 2 2.1 The Concept of Measurability...................................3 2.1.1 Simple Functions...................................... 10 2.2 Elementary Properties of Measures................................ 11 2.2.1 Arithmetic in [0, ] .................................... 12 1 2.3 Integration of Positive Functions.................................. 13 2.4 Integration of Complex Functions................................. 14 2.5 Sets of Measure Zero......................................... 14 2.6 Positive Borel Measures....................................... 14 2.6.1 Vector Spaces and Topological Preliminaries...................... 14 2.6.2 The Riesz Representation Theorem........................... 14 2.6.3 Regularity Properties of Borel Measures........................ 14 2.6.4 Lesbesgue Measure..................................... 14 2.6.5 Continuity Properties of Measurable Functions...................
    [Show full text]
  • Bunched Hypersequent Calculi for Distributive Substructural Logics
    EPiC Series in Computing Volume 46, 2017, Pages 417{434 LPAR-21. 21st International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning Bunched Hypersequent Calculi for Distributive Substructural Logics Agata Ciabattoni and Revantha Ramanayake Technische Universit¨atWien, Austria fagata,[email protected]∗ Abstract We introduce a new proof-theoretic framework which enhances the expressive power of bunched sequents by extending them with a hypersequent structure. A general cut- elimination theorem that applies to bunched hypersequent calculi satisfying general rule conditions is then proved. We adapt the methods of transforming axioms into rules to provide cutfree bunched hypersequent calculi for a large class of logics extending the dis- tributive commutative Full Lambek calculus DFLe and Bunched Implication logic BI. The methodology is then used to formulate new logics equipped with a cutfree calculus in the vicinity of Boolean BI. 1 Introduction The wide applicability of logical methods and their use in new subject areas has resulted in an explosion of new logics. The usefulness of these logics often depends on the availability of an analytic proof calculus (formal proof system), as this provides a natural starting point for investi- gating metalogical properties such as decidability, complexity, interpolation and conservativity, for developing automated deduction procedures, and for establishing semantic properties like standard completeness [26]. A calculus is analytic when every derivation (formal proof) in the calculus has the property that every formula occurring in the derivation is a subformula of the formula that is ultimately proved (i.e. the subformula property). The use of an analytic proof calculus tremendously restricts the set of possible derivations of a given statement to deriva- tions with a discernible structure (in certain cases this set may even be finite).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Theorems from Geometry 2321, 2322
    List of Theorems from Geometry 2321, 2322 Stephanie Hyland [email protected] April 24, 2010 There’s already a list of geometry theorems out there, but the course has changed since, so here’s a new one. They’re in order of ‘appearance in my notes’, which corresponds reasonably well to chronolog- ical order. 24 onwards is Hilary term stuff. The following theorems have actually been asked (in either summer or schol papers): 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30 a), 31 (associative only), 35, 36 a), 37, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48. Definitions are also asked, which aren’t included here. 1. On a finite-dimensional real vector space, the statement ‘V is open in M’ is independent of the choice of norm on M. ′ f f i 2. Let Rn ⊃ V −→ Rm be differentiable with f = (f 1, ..., f m). Then Rn −→ Rm, and f ′ = ∂f ∂xj f 3. Let M ⊃ V −→ N,a ∈ V . Then f is differentiable at a ⇒ f is continuous at a. 4. f = (f 1, ...f n) continuous ⇔ f i continuous, and same for differentiable. 5. The chain rule for functions on finite-dimensional real vector spaces. 6. The chain rule for functions of several real variables. f 7. Let Rn ⊃ V −→ R, V open. Then f is C1 ⇔ ∂f exists and is continuous, for i =1, ..., n. ∂xi 2 2 Rn f R 2 ∂ f ∂ f 8. Let ⊃ V −→ , V open. f is C . Then ∂xi∂xj = ∂xj ∂xi 9. (φ ◦ ψ)∗ = φ∗ ◦ ψ∗, where φ, ψ are maps of manifolds, and φ∗ is the push-forward of φ.
    [Show full text]
  • Bounded-Analytic Sequent Calculi and Embeddings for Hypersequent Logics?
    Bounded-analytic sequent calculi and embeddings for hypersequent logics? Agata Ciabattoni1, Timo Lang1, and Revantha Ramanayake2;3 1 Institute of Logic and Computation, Technische Universit¨atWien, A-1040 Vienna, Austria. fagata,[email protected] 2 Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, NL-9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands. [email protected] 3 CogniGron (Groningen Cognitive Systems and Materials Center), University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, NL-9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands. Abstract. A sequent calculus with the subformula property has long been recognised as a highly favourable starting point for the proof the- oretic investigation of a logic. However, most logics of interest cannot be presented using a sequent calculus with the subformula property. In response, many formalisms more intricate than the sequent calculus have been formulated. In this work we identify an alternative: retain the se- quent calculus but generalise the subformula property to permit specific axiom substitutions and their subformulas. Our investigation leads to a classification of generalised subformula properties and is applied to infinitely many substructural, intermediate and modal logics (specifi- cally: those with a cut-free hypersequent calculus). We also develop a complementary perspective on the generalised subformula properties in terms of logical embeddings. This yields new complexity upper bounds for contractive-mingle substructural logics and situates isolated results on the so-called simple substitution property within a general theory. 1 Introduction What concepts are essential to the proof of a given statement? This is a funda- mental and long-debated question in logic since the time of Leibniz, Kant and Frege, when a broad notion of analytic proof was formulated to mean truth by conceptual containments, or purity of method in mathematical arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Structural Proof Theory and Computing
    An overview of Structural Proof Theory and Computing Dale Miller INRIA-Saclay & LIX, Ecole´ Polytechnique Palaiseau, France Madison, Wisconsin, 2 April 2012 Part of the Special Session in Structural Proof Theory and Computing 2012 ASL annual meeting Outline Setting the stage Overview of sequent calculus Focused proof systems This special session Alexis Saurin, University of Paris 7 Proof search and the logic of interaction David Baelde, ITU Copenhagen A proof theoretical journey from programming to model checking and theorem proving Stefan Hetzl, Vienna University of Technology Which proofs can be computed by cut-elimination? Marco Gaboardi, University of Pennsylvania Light Logics for Polynomial Time Computations Some themes within proof theory • Ordinal analysis of consistency proofs (Gentzen, Sch¨utte, Pohlers, etc) • Reverse mathematics (Friedman, Simpson, etc) • Proof complexity (Cook, Buss, Kraj´ıˇcek,Pudl´ak,etc) • Structural Proof Theory (Gentzen, Girard, Prawitz, etc) • Focus on the combinatorial and structural properties of proof. • Proofs and their constituent are elements of computation Proof normalization. Programs are proofs and computation is proof normalization (λ-conversion, cut-elimination). A foundations for functional programming. Curry-Howard Isomorphism. Proof search. Programs are theories and computation is the search for sequent proofs. A foundations for logic programming, model checking, and theorem proving. Many roles of logic in computation Computation-as-model: Computations happens, i.e., states change, communications occur, etc. Logic is used to make statements about computation. E.g., Hoare triples, modal logics. Computation-as-deduction: Elements of logic are used to model elements of computation directly. Many roles of logic in computation Computation-as-model: Computations happens, i.e., states change, communications occur, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculus I – Math
    Math 380: Low-Dimensional Topology Instructor: Aaron Heap Office: South 330C E-mail: [email protected] Web Page: http://www.geneseo.edu/math/heap Textbook: Topology Now!, by Robert Messer & Philip Straffin. Course Info: We will cover topological equivalence, deformations, knots and links, surfaces, three- dimensional manifolds, and the fundamental group. Topics are subject to change depending on the progress of the class, and various topics may be skipped due to time constraints. An accurate reading schedule will be posted on the website, and you should check it often. By the time you take this course, most of you should be fairly comfortable with mathematical proofs. Although this course only has multivariable calculus, elementary linear algebra, and mathematical proofs as prerequisites, students are strongly encouraged to take abstract algebra (Math 330) prior to this course or concurrently. It requires a certain level of mathematical sophistication. There will be a lot of new terminology you must learn, and we will be doing a significant number of proofs. Please note that we will work on developing your independent reading skills in Mathematics and your ability to learn and use definitions and theorems. I certainly won't be able to cover in class all the material you will be required to learn. As a result, you will be expected to do a lot of reading. The reading assignments will be on topics to be discussed in the following lecture to enable you to ask focused questions in the class and to better understand the material. It is imperative that you keep up with the reading assignments.
    [Show full text]
  • On Analyticity in Deep Inference
    On Analyticity in Deep Inference Paola Bruscoli and Alessio Guglielmi∗ University of Bath Abstract In this note, we discuss the notion of analyticity in deep inference and propose a formal definition for it. The idea is to obtain a notion that would guarantee the same properties that analyticity in Gentzen theory guarantees, in particular, some reasonable starting point for algorithmic proof search. Given that deep inference generalises Gentzen proof theory, the notion of analyticity discussed here could be useful in general, and we offer some reasons why this might be the case. This note is dedicated to Dale Miller on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Dale has been for both of us a friend and one of our main sources of scientific inspiration. Happy birthday Dale! 1 Introduction It seems that the notion of analyticity in proof theory has been defined by Smullyan, firstly for natural-deduction systems in [Smu65], then for tableaux systems in [Smu66]. Afterwards, analyticity appeared as a core concept in his influential textbook [Smu68b]. There is no widely accepted and general definition of analytic proof system; however, the commonest view today is that such a system is a collection of inference rules that all possess some form of the subfor- mula property, as Smullyan argued. Since analyticity in the sequent calculus is conceptually equivalent to analyticity in the other Gentzen formalisms, in this note we focus on the sequent calculus as a representative of all formalisms of traditional proof theory [Gen69]. Normally, the only rule in a sequent system that does not possess the subformula property is the cut rule.
    [Show full text]
  • The Method of Proof Analysis: Background, Developments, New Directions
    The Method of Proof Analysis: Background, Developments, New Directions Sara Negri University of Helsinki JAIST Spring School 2012 Kanazawa, March 5–9, 2012 Motivations and background Overview Hilbert-style systems Gentzen systems Axioms-as-rules Developments Proof-theoretic semantics for non-classical logics Basic modal logic Intuitionistic and intermediate logics Intermediate logics and modal embeddings Gödel-Löb provability logic Displayable logics First-order modal logic Transitive closure Completeness, correspondence, decidability New directions Social and epistemic logics Knowability logic References What is proof theory? “The main concern of proof theory is to study and analyze structures of proofs. A typical question in it is ‘what kind of proofs will a given formula A have, if it is provable?’, or ‘is there any standard proof of A?’. In proof theory, we want to derive some logical properties from the analysis of structures of proofs, by anticipating that these properties must be reflected in the structures of proofs. In most cases, the analysis will be based on combinatorial and constructive arguments. In this way, we can get sometimes much more information on the logical properties than with semantical methods, which will use set-theoretic notions like models,interpretations and validity.” (H. Ono, Proof-theoretic methods in nonclassical logic–an introduction, 1998) Challenges in modal and non-classical logics Difficulties in establishing analyticity and normalization/cut-elimination even for basic modal systems. Extension of proof-theoretic semantics to non-classical logic. Generality of model theory vs. goal directed developments in proof theory for non-classical logics. Proliferation of calculi “beyond Gentzen systems”. Defeatist attitudes: “No proof procedure suffices for every normal modal logic determined by a class of frames.” (M.
    [Show full text]
  • Negri, S and Von Plato, J Structural Proof Theory
    Sequent Calculus for Intuitionistic Logic We present a system of sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic. In later chapters we obtain stronger systems by adding rules to this basic system, and we therefore go through its proof-theoretical properties in detail, in particular the admissibility of structural rules and the basic consequences of cut elimination. Many of these properties can then be verified in a routine fashion for extensions of the system. We begin with a discussion of the significance of constructive reasoning. 2.1. CONSTRUCTIVE REASONING Intuitionistic logic, and intuitionism more generally, used to be philosophically motivated, but today the grounds for using intuitionistic logic can be completely neutral philosophically. Intuitionistic or constructive reasoning, which are the same thing, systematically supports computability: If the initial data in a problem or theorem are computable and if one reasons constructively, logic will never make one committed to an infinite computation. Classical logic, instead, does not make the distinction between the computable and the noncomputable. We illustrate these phenomena by an example: A mathematical colleague comes with an algorithm for generating a decimal expansion O.aia2a3..., and also gives a proof that if none of the decimals at is greater than zero, a contradiction follows. Then you are asked to find the first decimal ak such that ak > 0. But you are out of luck in this task, for several hours and days of computation bring forth only 0's Given two real numbers a and b, if it happens to be true that they are equal, a and b would have to be computed to infinite precision to verify a = b.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Theorems in Mathematics
    SOME FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS IN MATHEMATICS OLIVER KNILL Abstract. An expository hitchhikers guide to some theorems in mathematics. Criteria for the current list of 243 theorems are whether the result can be formulated elegantly, whether it is beautiful or useful and whether it could serve as a guide [6] without leading to panic. The order is not a ranking but ordered along a time-line when things were writ- ten down. Since [556] stated “a mathematical theorem only becomes beautiful if presented as a crown jewel within a context" we try sometimes to give some context. Of course, any such list of theorems is a matter of personal preferences, taste and limitations. The num- ber of theorems is arbitrary, the initial obvious goal was 42 but that number got eventually surpassed as it is hard to stop, once started. As a compensation, there are 42 “tweetable" theorems with included proofs. More comments on the choice of the theorems is included in an epilogue. For literature on general mathematics, see [193, 189, 29, 235, 254, 619, 412, 138], for history [217, 625, 376, 73, 46, 208, 379, 365, 690, 113, 618, 79, 259, 341], for popular, beautiful or elegant things [12, 529, 201, 182, 17, 672, 673, 44, 204, 190, 245, 446, 616, 303, 201, 2, 127, 146, 128, 502, 261, 172]. For comprehensive overviews in large parts of math- ematics, [74, 165, 166, 51, 593] or predictions on developments [47]. For reflections about mathematics in general [145, 455, 45, 306, 439, 99, 561]. Encyclopedic source examples are [188, 705, 670, 102, 192, 152, 221, 191, 111, 635].
    [Show full text]