The paper shows how ideas that explain the sense of an expression as a method or algorithm for finding its reference, preshadowed in Frege’s dictum that sense is the way in which a referent is given, can be formalized on the basis of the ideas in Thomason (1980). To this end, the function that sends propositions to truth values or sets of possible worlds in Thomason (1980) must be replaced by a relation and the meaning postulates governing the behaviour of (...) this relation must be given in the form of a logic program. The resulting system does not only throw light on the properties of sense and their relation to computation, but also shows circular behaviour if some ingredients of the Liar Paradox are added. The connection is natural, as algorithms can be inherently circular and the Liar is explained as expressing one of those. Many ideas in the present paper are closely related to those in Moschovakis (1994), but receive a considerably lighter formalization. (shrink)

In this paper we define intensional models for the classical theory of types, thus arriving at an intensional type logic ITL. Intensional models generalize Henkin's general models and have a natural definition. As a class they do not validate the axiom of Extensionality. We give a cut-free sequent calculus for type theory and show completeness of this calculus with respect to the class of intensional models via a model existence theorem. After this we turn our attention to applications. Firstly, it (...) is argued that, since ITL is truly intensional, it can be used to model ascriptions of propositional attitude without predicting logical omniscience. In order to illustrate this a small fragment of English is defined and provided with an ITL semantics. Secondly, it is shown that ITL models contain certain objects that can be identified with possible worlds. Essential elements of modal logic become available within classical type theory once the axiom of Extensionality is given up. (shrink)

The topics of structural proof theory and logic programming have influenced each other for more than three decades. Proof theory has contributed the notion of sequent calculus, linear logic, and higher-order quantification. Logic programming has introduced new normal forms of proofs and forced the examination of logic-based approaches to the treatment of bindings. As a result, proof theory has responded by developing an approach to proof search based on focused proof systems in which introduction rules are organized into two alternating (...) phases of rule application. Since the logic programming community can generate many examples and many design goals, the close connections with proof theory have helped to keep proof theory relevant to the general topic of computational logic. (shrink)

A structure which generalizes formulas by including substitution terms is used to represent proofs in classical logic. These structures, called expansion trees, can be most easily understood as describing a tautologous substitution instance of a theorem. They also provide a computationally useful representation of classical proofs as first-class values. As values they are compact and can easily be manipulated and transformed. For example, we present an explicit transformations between expansion tree proofs and cut-free sequential proofs. A theorem prover which represents (...) proofs using expansion trees can use this transformation to present its proofs in more human-readable form. Also a very simple computation on expansion trees can transform them into Craig-style linear reasoning and into interpolants when they exist. We have chosen a sublogic of the Simple Theory of Types for our classical logic because it elegantly represents substitutions at all finite types through the use of the typed -calculus. Since all the proof-theoretic results we shall study depend heavily on properties of substitutions, using this logic has allowed us to strengthen and extend prior results: we are able to prove a strengthen form of the firstorder interpolation theorem as well as provide a correct description of Skolem functions and the Herbrand Universe. The latter are not straightforward generalization of their first-order definitions. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper introduces a multi-valued variant of higher-order resolution and proves it correct and complete with respect to a variant of Henkin's general model semantics. This resolution method is parametric in the number of truth values as well as in the particular choice of the set of connectives (given by arbitrary truth tables) and even substitutional quantifiers. In the course of the completeness proof we establish a model existence theorem for this logical system. The work reported in this paper (...) provides a basis for developing higher-order mechanizations for many non-classical logics. (shrink)

We define a generalization of the first-order cut-elimination method CERES to higher-order logic. At the core of lies the computation of an set of sequents from a proof π of a sequent S. A refutation of in a higher-order resolution calculus can be used to transform cut-free parts of π into a cut-free proof of S. An example illustrates the method and shows that can produce meaningful cut-free proofs in mathematics that traditional cut-elimination methods cannot reach.

Montague [7] translates English into a tensed intensional logic, an extension of the typed -calculus. We prove that each translation reduces to a formula without -applications, unique to within change of bound variable. The proof has two main steps. We first prove that translations of English phrases have the special property that arguments to functions are modally closed. We then show that formulas in which arguments are modally closed have a unique fully reduced -normal form. As a corollary, translations of (...) English phrases are contained in a simply defined proper subclass of the formulas of the intensional logic. (shrink)

In the recent past, the reduction-based and the model-based methods to prove cut elimination have converged, so that they now appear just as two sides of the same coin. This paper details some of the steps of this transformation.

We give a simple and direct proof that super-consistency implies the cut-elimination property in deduction modulo. This proof can be seen as a simplification of the proof that super-consistency implies proof normalization. It also takes ideas from the semantic proofs of cut elimination that proceed by proving the completeness of the cut-free calculus. As an application, we compare our work with the cut-elimination theorems in higher-order logic that involve V-complexes.

A semantic embedding of quantified conditional logic in classical higher-order logic is utilized for reducing cut-elimination in the former logic to existing results for the latter logic. The presented embedding approach is adaptable to a wide range of other logics, for many of which cut-elimination is still open. However, special attention has to be payed to cut-simulation, which may render cut-elimination as a pointless criterion.

We investigate several approaches to resolution based automated theoremproving in classical higher-order logic (based on Church's simply typedλ-calculus) and discuss their requirements with respect to Henkincompleteness and full extensionality. In particular we focus on Andrews' higher-order resolution (Andrews 1971), Huet's constrained resolution (Huet1972), higher-order E-resolution, and extensional higher-order resolution(Benzmüller and Kohlhase 1997). With the help of examples we illustratethe parallels and differences of the extensionality treatment of these approachesand demonstrate that extensional higher-order resolution is the sole approach thatcan completely avoid (...) additional extensionality axioms. (shrink)

The history of building automated theorem provers for higher-order logic is almost as old as the field of deduction systems itself. The first successful attempts to mechanize and implement higher-order logic were those of Huet [13] and Jensen and Pietrzykowski [17]. They combine the resolution principle for higher-order logic (first studied in [1]) with higher-order unification. The unification problem in typed λ-calculi is much more complex than that for first-order terms, since it has to take the theory of αβη-equality into (...) account. As a consequence, the higher-order unification problem is undecidable and sets of solutions need not even always have most general elements that represent them. Thus the mentioned calculi for higher-order logic have take special measures to circumvent the problems posed by the theoretical complexity of higher-order unification. In this paper, we will exemplify the methods and proof- and model-theoretic tools needed for extending first-order automated theorem proving to higherorder logic. For the sake of simplicity take the tableau method as a basis (for a general introduction to first-order tableaux see part I.1) and discuss the higherorder tableau calculi HT and HTE first presented in [19]. The methods in this paper also apply to higher-order resolution calculi [1, 13, 6] or the higher-order matings method of Peter [3], which extend their first-order counterparts in much the same way. Since higher-order calculi cannot be complete for the standard semantics by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem [11], only the weaker notion of Henkin models [12] leads to a meaningful notion of completeness in higher-order logic. It turns out that the calculi in [1, 13, 3, 19] are not Henkin-complete, since they fail to capture the extensionality principles of higher-order logic. We will characterize the deductive power of our calculus HT (which is roughly equivalent to these calculi) by the semantics of functional Σ-models. To arrive at a calculus that is complete with respect to Henkin models, we build on ideas from [6] and augment HT with tableau construction rules that use the extensionality principles in a goal-oriented way.. (shrink)

A logic is called higher order if it allows for quantification over higher order objects, such as functions of individuals, relations between individuals, functions of functions, relations between functions, etc. Higher order logic began with Frege, was formalized in Russell [46] and Whitehead and Russell [52] early in the previous century, and received its canonical formulation in Church [14].1 While classical type theory has since long been overshadowed by set theory as a foundation of mathematics, recent decades have shown remarkable (...) comebacks in the fields of mechanized reasoning (see, e.g., Benzm¨. (shrink)