The paper introduces a new type of rules into Natural Deduction, elimination rules by composition. Elimination rules by composition replace usual elimination rules in the style of disjunction elimination and give a more direct treatment of additive disjunction, multiplicative conjunction, existence quantifier and possibility modality. Elimination rules by composition have an enormous impact on proof-structures of deductions: they do not produce segments, deduction trees remain binary branching, there is no vacuous discharge, there is only few need of permutations. This new (...) type of rules fits especially to substructural issues, so it is shown for Lambek Calculus, i.e. intuitionistic non-commutative linear logic and to its extensions by structural rules like permutation, weakening and contraction. Natural deduction formulated with elimination rules by composition from a complexity perspective is superior to other calculi. (shrink)

The article presents a full proof‐theoretic semantics for natural deduction based on an extended inversion principle: the elimination rule for an operator q may invert the introduction rule for q, but also vice versa, the introduction rule for a connective q may invert the elimination rule for q. Such an inversion—extending Prawitz' concept of inversion—gives the following theorem: Inversion for two rules of operator q (intro rule, elim rule) exists iff a reduction of a maximum formula for q exists. The (...) inversion theorem is specified to two logics, Lambek calculus (LC) and intuitionistic linear logic (ILL), with four propositional connectives: two multiplicatives (implication and conjunction) and two additives (conjunction and disjunction), with two quantifiers and two modals. LC is defined by using elimination rules by composition. ILL is defined by using usual general elimination rules. Elimination rules by composition are an exciting alternative to general elimination rules; in some cases, they do not need permutations. (shrink)

A formulation of Full Lambek Calculus in the framework of natural deduction is given.

We develop a predicate logical extension of a subintuitionistic propositional logic. Therefore a Hilbert type calculus and a Kripke type model are given. The propositional logic is formulated to axiomatize the idea of strategic weakening of Kripke''s semantic for intuitionistic logic: dropping the semantical condition of heredity or persistence leads to a nonmonotonic model. On the syntactic side this leads to a certain restriction imposed on the deduction theorem. By means of a Henkin argument strong completeness is proved making use (...) of predicate logical principles, which are only classically acceptable. (shrink)

The paper generalises Goldblatt's completeness proof for Lemmon–Scott formulas to various modal propositional logics without classical negation and without ex falso, up to positive modal logic, where conjunction and disjunction, andwhere necessity and possibility are respectively independent.Further the paper proves definability theorems for Lemmon–Scottformulas, which hold even in modal propositional languages without negation and without falsum. Both, the completeness theorem and the definability theoremmake use only of special constructions of relations,like relation products. No second order logic, no general frames are (...) involved. (shrink)

The paper presents predicate logical extensions of some subintuitionistic logics. Subintuitionistic logics result if conditions of the accessibility relation in Kripke models for intuitionistic logic are dropped. The accessibility relation which interprets implication in models for the propositional base subintuitionistic logic considered here is neither persistent on atoms, nor reflexive, nor transitive. Strongly complete predicate logical extensions are modeled with a second accessibility relation, which is a partial order, for the interpretation of the universal quantifier.