-
Canonical Proof nets for Classical Logic
Authors:
Richard McKinley
Abstract:
Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that (a) there shou…
▽ More
Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that (a) there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, (b) it should be possible to check the correctness of a net in polynomial time, (c) every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and (d) there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness. Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In [23], the author presented a calculus of proof nets (expansion nets) satisfying (a) and (b); the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of (c). That sequent calculus, called LK\ast in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper (a self-contained extended version of [23]), we give a full proof of (c) for expansion nets with respect to LK\ast, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets - this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria.
△ Less
Submitted 19 March, 2012;
originally announced March 2012.
-
A sequent calculus demonstration of Herbrand's theorem
Authors:
Richard McKinley
Abstract:
Herbrand's theorem is often presented as a corollary of Gentzen's sharpened Hauptsatz for the classical sequent calculus. However, the midsequent gives Herbrand's theorem directly only for formulae in prenex normal form. In the Handbook of Proof Theory, Buss claims to give a proof of the full statement of the theorem, using sequent calculus methods to show completeness of a calculus of Herbrand pr…
▽ More
Herbrand's theorem is often presented as a corollary of Gentzen's sharpened Hauptsatz for the classical sequent calculus. However, the midsequent gives Herbrand's theorem directly only for formulae in prenex normal form. In the Handbook of Proof Theory, Buss claims to give a proof of the full statement of the theorem, using sequent calculus methods to show completeness of a calculus of Herbrand proofs, but as we demonstrate there is a flaw in the proof. In this note we give a correct demonstration of Herbrand's theorem in its full generality, as a corollary of the full cut-elimination theorem for LK. The major difficulty is to show that, if there is an Herbrand proof of the premiss of a contraction rule, there is an Herbrand proof of its conclusion. We solve this problem by showing the admissibility of a deep contraction rule.
△ Less
Submitted 20 July, 2010;
originally announced July 2010.
-
Proof nets for Herbrand's Theorem
Authors:
Richard McKinley
Abstract:
This paper explores the connection between two central results in the proof theory of classical logic: Gentzen's cut-elimination for the sequent calculus and Herbrands "fundamental theorem". Starting from Miller's expansion-tree-proofs, a highly structured way presentation of Herbrand's theorem, we define a calculus of weakening-free proof nets for (prenex) first-order classical logic, and give a…
▽ More
This paper explores the connection between two central results in the proof theory of classical logic: Gentzen's cut-elimination for the sequent calculus and Herbrands "fundamental theorem". Starting from Miller's expansion-tree-proofs, a highly structured way presentation of Herbrand's theorem, we define a calculus of weakening-free proof nets for (prenex) first-order classical logic, and give a weakly-normalizing cut-elimination procedure. It is not possible to formulate the usual counterexamples to confluence of cut-elimination in this calculus, but it is nonetheless nonconfluent, lending credence to the view that classical logic is inherently nonconfluent.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2010;
originally announced May 2010.
