Proof Terms for Classical Derivations

Abstract

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Normal derivations and sequent derivations.Mirjana Borisavljevi - 2008 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6):521 - 548.
Canonical proof nets for classical logic.Richard McKinley - 2013 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 164 (6):702-732.
Proofnets for S5: sequents and circuits for modal logic.Greg Restall - 2007 - In C. Dimitracopoulos, L. Newelski & D. Normann (eds.), Logic Colloquium 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 151-172.
Cut-elimination and proof-search for bi-intuitionistic logic using nested sequents.Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece & Alwen Tiu - 1998 - In Marcus Kracht, Maarten de Rijke, Heinrich Wansing & Michael Zakharyaschev (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic. CSLI Publications. pp. 43-66.
Pluralism and Proofs.Greg Restall - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (S2):279-291.
Gentzen's proof systems: byproducts in a work of genius.Jan von Plato - 2012 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 18 (3):313-367.
Translations from natural deduction to sequent calculus.Jan von Plato - 2003 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 49 (5):435.
Identity of proofs based on normalization and generality.Kosta Došen - 2003 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9 (4):477-503.
Gentzen’s consistency proof without heightlines.Annika Siders - 2013 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 52 (3-4):449-468.
Sequent reconstruction in LLM—A sweepline proof.R. Banach - 1995 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 73 (3):277-295.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-14

Downloads
127 (#138,381)

6 months
24 (#109,950)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Meaning Approached Via Proofs.Dag Prawitz - 2006 - Synthese 148 (3):507-524.
On the idea of a general proof theory.Dag Prawitz - 1974 - Synthese 27 (1-2):63 - 77.
Constructions, proofs and the meaning of logical constants.Göran Sundholm - 1983 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 12 (2):151 - 172.
Proofnets for S5: sequents and circuits for modal logic.Greg Restall - 2007 - In C. Dimitracopoulos, L. Newelski & D. Normann (eds.), Logic Colloquium 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 151-172.
Identity of proofs based on normalization and generality.Kosta Došen - 2003 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9 (4):477-503.

View all 11 references / Add more references