In a classical 1976 paper, Solovay proved the arithmetical completeness of the modal logic GL; provability of a formula in GL coincides with provability of its arithmetical interpretations of it in Peano Arithmetic. In that paper, he also provided an axiomatic system GLS and proved arithmetical completeness for GLS; provability of a formula in GLS coincides with truth of its arithmetical interpretations in the standard model of arithmetic. Proof theory for GL has been studied intensively up to the present day. (...) However, it might sound somewhat strange that no proof theory for GLS was ever developed nor even suggested thus far, except for the axiomatic system offered by Solovay. In this paper, we develop a proof theory for GLS based on the sequent calculus method. We provide a sequent calculus for GLS and prove the cut-elimination and some standard consequences of it: the interpolation and definability theorems. As another consequence of cut-elimination, we also prove the equivalence of GL and GLS with respect to a special form of formulas which we call Gödel sentences, using a purely proof-theoretical method. (shrink)

In 1983, Valentini presented a syntactic proof of cut elimination for a sequent calculus GLSV for the provability logic GL where we have added the subscript V for “Valentini”. The sequents in GLSV were built from sets, as opposed to multisets, thus avoiding an explicit contraction rule. From a syntactic point of view, it is more satisfying and formal to explicitly identify the applications of the contraction rule that are ‘hidden’ in these set based proofs of cut elimination. There is (...) often an underly ing assumption that the move to a proof of cut elimination for sequents built from multisets is easy. Recently, however, it has been claimed that Valentini’s arguments to eliminate cut do not terminate when applied to a multiset formulation of GLSV with an explicit rule of contraction. The claim has led to much confusion and various authors have sought new proofs of cut elimination for GL in a multiset setting. Here we refute this claim by placing Valentini’s arguments in a formal setting and proving cut elimination for sequents built from multisets. The formal setting is particularly important for sequents built from multisets, in order to accurately account for the interplay between the weakening and contraction rules. Furthermore, Valentini’s original proof relies on a novel induction parameter called “width” which is computed ‘globally’. It is diffi cult to verify the correctness of his induction argument based on “width”. In our formulation however, verification of the induction argument is straight forward. Finally, the multiset setting also introduces a new complication in the the case of contractions above cut when the cut formula is boxed. We deal with this using a new transformation based on Valentini’s original arguments. Finally, we show that the algorithm purporting to show the non termi nation of Valentini’s arguments is not a faithful representation of the original arguments, but is instead a transformation already known to be insufficient. (shrink)

We present a syntactic proof of cut-elimination for weak Grzegorczyk logic Go. The logic has a syntactically similar axiomatisation to Gödel–Löb logic GL (provability logic) and Grzegorczyk’s logic Grz. Semantically, GL can be viewed as the irreflexive counterpart of Go, and Grz can be viewed as the reflexive counterpart of Go. Although proofs of syntactic cut-elimination for GL and Grz have appeared in the literature, this is the first proof of syntactic cut-elimination for Go. The proof is technically interesting, requiring (...) a deeper analysis of the derivation structures than the proofs for GL and Grz. New transformations generalising the transformations for GL and Grz are developed here. (shrink)

In this paper the PA-completeness of modal logic is studied by syntactical and constructive methods. The main results are theorems on the structure of the PA-proofs of suitable arithmetical interpretationsS of a modal sequentS, which allow the transformation of PA-proofs ofS into proof-trees similar to modal proof-trees. As an application of such theorems, a proof of Solovay's theorem on arithmetical completeness of the modal system G is presented for the class of modal sequents of Boolean combinations of formulas of the (...) form p i,m i=0, 1, 2, ... The paper is the preliminary step for a forthcoming global syntactical resolution of the PA-completeness problem for modal logic. (shrink)

This paper is the first of a series of three articles that present the syntactic proof of the PA-completeness of the modal system G, by introducing suitable proof-theoretic objects, which also have an independent interest. We start from the syntactic PA-completeness of modal system GL-LIN, previously obtained in [7], [8], and so we assume to be working on modal sequents S which are GL-LIN-theorems. If S is not a G-theorem we define here a notion of syntactic metric d(S, G): we (...) calculate a canonical characteristic fomula H of S (char(S)) so that ⊢G ∼ H → (∼S) and ⊢GL-LIN ∼ H, and the complexity σ of ∼ H gives the distance d(S, G) of S from G. Then, in order to produce the whole completeness proof as an induction on this d(S, G), we introduce the tree-interpretation of a modal sequent Q into PA, that sends the letters of Q into PA-formulas describing the properties of a GL-LIN-proof P of Q: It is also a d(*, G)-metric linked interpretation, since it will be applied to a proof-tree T of ∼ H with H = char(S) and σ(∼ H) = d(S, G). (shrink)

This paper is the final part of the syntactic demonstration of the Arithmetical Completeness of the modal system G; in the preceding parts [9] and [10] the tools for the proof were defined, in particular the notion of syntactic countermodel. Our strategy is: PA-completeness of G as a search for interpretations which force the distance between G and a GL-LIN-theorem to zero. If the GL-LIN-theorem S is not a G-theorem, we construct a formula H expressing the non G-provability of S, (...) so that ⊢GL-LIN ∼ H and so that a canonical proof T of ∼ H in GL-LIN is a syntactic countermodel for S with respect to G, which has the height θ(T) equal to the distance d(S, G) of S from G. Then we define the interpretation ξ of S which represents the proof-tree T in PA. By induction on θ(T), we prove that ⊢PA Sξ and d(S, G) > 0 imply the inconsistency of PA. (shrink)

In this paper are studied the properties of the proofs in PRA of provability logic sentences, i.e. of formulas which are Boolean combinations of formulas of the form PIPRA, where h is the Gödel-number of a sentence in PRA. The main result is a Normal Form Theorem on the proof-trees of provability logic sequents, which states that it is possible to split the proof into an arithmetical part, which contains only atomic formulas and has an essentially intuitionistic character, and into (...) a logical part, which is merely instrumental. Moreover, the induction rules which occur in the arithmetical part are implicit. Some applications of the Normal Form Theorem are shown in order to obtain some syntactical results on the PRA-completeness of modal logic. In particular a completeness theorem for Boolean combinations of modalities is given. (shrink)

The system GLS, which is a modal sequent calculus system for the provability logic GL, was introduced by G. Sambin and S. Valentini in Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 311–342,, and in 12, 471–476,, the second author presented a syntactic cut-elimination proof for GLS. In this paper, we will use regress trees in order to present a simpler and more intuitive syntactic cut derivability proof for GLS1, which is a variant of GLS without the cut rule.