Any arbitrarily complicated non-oriented graph, that is a graph of arbitrarily large genus, can be encoded in a cut-free proof. This unpublished result of Statman was shown in the early seventies. We provide a proof of it, and of a number of other related facts.

Labelled sequent calculi are provided for a wide class of normal modal systems using truth values as labels. The rules for formula constructors are common to all modal systems. For each modal system, specific rules for truth values are provided that reflect the envisaged properties of the accessibility relation. Both local and global reasoning are supported. Strong completeness is proved for a natural two-sorted algebraic semantics. As a corollary, strong completeness is also obtained over general Kripke semantics. A duality result (...) is established between the category of sober algebras and the category of general Kripke structures. A simple enrichment of the proposed sequent calculi is proved to be complete over standard Kripke structures. The calculi are shown to be analytic in a useful sense. (shrink)

Arrow and turnstile interpolations are investigated in UCL [introduced by Sernadas et al. ], a logic that is a complete extension of classical propositional logic for reasoning about connectives that only behave as expected with a given probability. Arrow interpolation is shown to hold in general and turnstile interpolation is established under some provisos.

I present a new syntactical method for proving the Interpolation Theorem for the implicational fragment of intuitionistic logic and its substructural subsystems. This method, like Prawitz’s, works on natural deductions rather than sequent derivations, and, unlike existing methods, always finds a ‘strongest’ interpolant under a certain restricted but reasonable notion of what counts as an ‘interpolant’.

Herbrand’s theorem is one of the most fundamental results about first-order logic. In the context of proof analysis, Herbrand-disjunctions are used for describing the constructive content of cut-free proofs. However, given a proof with cuts, the computation of a Herbrand-disjunction is of significant computational complexity, as the cuts in the proof have to be eliminated first.In this paper we prove a generalization of Herbrand’s theorem: From a proof with cuts, one can read off a small tautology composed of instances of (...) the end-sequent and the cut formulas. This tautology describes the proof in the following way: Each cut induces a formula stating that a disjunction of instances of the cut formula implies a conjunction of instances of the cut formula. All these cut-implications together then imply the already existing instances of the end-sequent. The proof that this formula is a tautology is carried out by transforming the instances in the proof to normal forms and using characteristic clause sets to relate them. These clause sets have first been studied in the context of cut-elimination.This extended Herbrand theorem is then applied to cut-elimination sequences in order to show that, for the computation of an Herbrand-disjunction, the knowledge of only the term substitutions performed during cut-elimination is already sufficient. (shrink)

In standard model theory, deductions are not the things one models. But in general proof theory, in particular in categorial proof theory, one finds models of deductions, and the purpose here is to motivate a simple example of such models. This will be a model of deductions performed within an abstract context, where we do not have any particular logical constant, but something underlying all logical constants. In this context, deductions are represented by arrows in categories involved in a general (...) adjoint situation. To motivate the notion of adjointness, one of the central notions of category theory, and of mathematics in general, it is first considered how some features of it occur in set-theoretical axioms and in the axioms of the lambda calculus. Next, it is explained how this notion arises in the context of deduction, where it characterizes logical constants. It is shown also how the categorial point of view suggests an analysis of propositional identity. The problem of propositional identity, i.e., the problem of identity of meaning for propositions, is no doubt a philosophical problem, but the spirit of the analysis proposed here will be rather mathematical. Finally, it is considered whether models of deductions can pretend to be a semantics. This question, which as so many questions having to do with meaning brings us to that wall that blocked linguists and philosophers during the whole of the twentieth century, is merely posed. At the very end, there is the example of a geometrical model of adjunction. Without pretending that it is a semantics, it is hoped that this model may prove illuminating and useful. (shrink)

Some thirty years ago, two proposals were made concerning criteria for identity of proofs. Prawitz proposed to analyze identity of proofs in terms of the equivalence relation based on reduction to normal form in natural deduction. Lambek worked on a normalization proposal analogous to Prawitz's, based on reduction to cut-free form in sequent systems, but he also suggested understanding identity of proofs in terms of an equivalence relation based on generality, two derivations having the same generality if after generalizing maximally (...) the rules involved in them they yield the same premises and conclusions up to a renaming of variables. These two proposals proved to be extensionally equivalent only for limited fragments of logic. The normalization proposal stands behind very successful applications of the typed lambda calculus and of category theory in the proof theory of intuitionistic logic. In classical logic, however, it did not fare well. The generality proposal was rather neglected in logic, though related matters were much studied in pure category theory in connection with coherence problems, and there are also links to low-dimensional topology and linear algebra. This proposal seems more promising than the other one for the general proof theory of classical logic. (shrink)

I give an account of proof terms for derivations in a sequent calculus for classical propositional logic. The term for a derivation δ of a sequent Σ≻Δ encodes how the premises Σ and conclusions Δ are related in δ. This encoding is many–to–one in the sense that different derivations can have the same proof term, since different derivations may be different ways of representing the same underlying connection between premises and conclusions. However, not all proof terms for a sequent Σ≻Δ (...) are the same. There may be different ways to connect those premises and conclusions. -/- Proof terms can be simplified in a process corresponding to the elimination of cut inferences in sequent derivations. However, unlike cut elimination in the sequent calculus, each proof term has a unique normal form (from which all cuts have been eliminated) and it is straightforward to show that term reduction is strongly normalising—every reduction process terminates in that unique normal form. Further- more, proof terms are invariants for sequent derivations in a strong sense—two derivations δ1 and δ2 have the same proof term if and only if some permutation of derivation steps sends δ1 to δ2 (given a relatively natural class of permutations of derivations in the sequent calculus). Since not every derivation of a sequent can be permuted into every other derivation of that sequent, proof terms provide a non-trivial account of the identity of proofs, independent of the syntactic representation of those proofs. (shrink)