Gentzen writes in the published version of his doctoral thesis Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen that he was able to prove the normalization theorem only for intuitionistic natural deduction, but not for classical. To cover the latter, he developed classical sequent calculus and proved a corresponding theorem, the famous cut elimination result. Its proof was organized so that a cut elimination result for an intuitionistic sequent calculus came out as a special case, namely the one in which the sequents (...) have at most one formula in the right, succedent part. Thus, there was no need for a direct proof of normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. The only traces of such a proof in the published thesis are some convertibilities, such as when an implication introduction is followed by an implication elimination [1934–35, II.5.13]. It remained to Dag Prawitz in 1965 to work out a proof of normalization. Another, less known proof was given also in 1965 by Andres Raggio.We found in February 2005 an early handwritten version of Gentzen's thesis, with exactly the above title, but with rather different contents: Most remarkably, it contains a detailed proof of normalization for what became the standard system of natural deduction. The manuscript is located in the Paul Bernays collection at the ETH-Zurichwith the signum Hs. 974: 271. Bernays must have gotten it well before the time of his being expelled from Göttingen on the basis of the racial laws in April 1933. (shrink)

In this paper we show that, in Gentzen systems, there is a close relation between two of the main characters in algebraic logic and proof theory respectively: protoalgebraicity and the cut rule. We give certain conditions under which a Gentzen system is protoalgebraic if and only if it possesses the cut rule. To obtain this equivalence, we limit our discussion to what we call regular sequent calculi, which are those comprising some of the structural rules and some (...) logical rules, in a sense we make precise. We note that this restricted set of rules includes all the usual rules in the literature. We also stress the difference between the case of two-sided sequents and the case of many-sided sequents, in which more conditions are needed. (shrink)

Conditional logic is the deductive system , where is the set of propositional connectives {, ,} and is the structural finitary consequence relation on the absolutely free algebra that preserves degrees of truth over the structure of truth values C, . HereC is the non-commutative regular extension of the 2-element Boolean algebra to 3 truth values {t, u, f}, andfut. In this paper we give a Gentzen type axiomatization for conditional logic.

In this paper we present a Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. The intuition behind the system is that a contrary-to-duty is a special kind of normative exception. The logical machinery to formalise this idea is taken from substructural logics and it is based on the definition of a new non-classical connective capturing the notion of reparational obligation. Then the system is tested against well-known contrary-to-duty paradoxes.

Generally speaking, it appears correct to say that in a formulation of first order logic in which a large number of connectives are taken as primitive which allows us to have our cake and eat it too.

This paper is a study of four subscripted Gentzen systems G u R +, G u T +, G u RW + and G u TW +. [16] shows that the first three are equivalent to the semilattice relevant logics u R +, u T + and u RW + and conjectures that G u TW + is, equivalent to u TW +. Here we prove Cut Theorems for these systems, and then show that modus ponens is admissible — (...) which is not so trivial as one normally expects. Finally, we give decision procedures for the contractionless systems, G u TW + and G u RW +. (shrink)

A quasi-canonical Gentzen-type system is a Gentzen-type system in which each logical rule introduces either a formula of the form , or of the form , and all the active formulas of its premises belong to the set . In this paper we investigate quasi-canonical systems in which exactly one of the two classical rules for negation is included, turning the induced logic into either a paraconsistent logic or a paracomplete logic, but not both. We provide (...) a constructive coherence criterion for such systems, and show that a quasi-canonical system of the type we investigate is coherent iff it is strongly paraconsistent or strongly paracomplete (in a sense defined in the paper), iff it has a trivalent, non-deterministic semantics of a special type (also defined in the paper) for which it is sound and complete. Finally, we determine when a system of this sort admits cut-elimination, and provide a simple procedure for transforming one which does not into one which does. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this paper we study consequence relations on the set of many sided sequents over a propositional language. We deal with the consequence relations axiomatized by the sequent calculi defined in [2] and associated with arbitrary finite algebras. These consequence relations are examples of what we call Gentzen systems. We define a semantics for these systems and prove a Strong Completeness Theorem, which is an extension of the Completeness Theorem for provable sequents stated in [2]. For the special (...) case of the finite linear MV-algebras, the Strong Completeness Theorem was proved in [10], as a consequence of McNaughton's Theorem. The main tool to prove this result for arbitrary algebras is the deduction-detachment theorem for Gentzen systems. (shrink)

In this paper, the positive fragment of the logic math formula of contraction-less relevant implication is extended with the addition of a paraconsistent negation connective similar to the strong negation connective in Nelson's paraconsistent four-valued logic math formula. This extended relevant logic is called math formula, and it has the property of constructible falsity which is known to be a characteristic property of math formula. A Gentzen-type sequent calculus math formula for math formula is introduced, and the cut-elimination and (...) decidability theorems for math formula are proved. Two extended Routley-Meyer semantics are introduced for math formula, and the completeness theorems with respect to these semantics are proved. (shrink)

Most Gentzen systems arising in logic contain few axiom schemata and many rule schemata. Hilbert systems, on the other hand, usually contain few proper inference rules and possibly many axioms. Because of this, the two notions tend to serve different purposes. It is common for a logic to be specified in the first instance by means of a Gentzen calculus, whereupon a Hilbert-style presentation ‘for’ the logic may be sought—or vice versa. Where this has occurred, the word ‘for’ (...) has taken on several different meanings, partly because the Gentzen separator ⇒ can be interpreted intuitively in a number of ways. Here ⇒ will be denoted less evocatively by ⊲.In this paper we aim to discuss some of the useful ways in which Gentzen and Hilbert systems may correspond to each other. Actually, we shall be concerned with thededucibility relationsof the formal systems, as it is these that are susceptible to transformation in useful ways. To avoid potential confusion, we shall speak of Hilbert and Gentzenrelations. By aHilbert relationwe mean any substitution-invariant consequence relation onformulas—this comes to the same thing as the deducibility relation of a set of Hilbert-style axioms and rules. By aGentzen relationwe mean the fully fledged generalization of this notion in whichsequentstake the place of single formulas. In the literature, Hilbert relations are often referred to assentential logics. Gentzen relations as defined here are their exactsequentialcounterparts. (shrink)

Gentzen’s sequent calculi LK and LJ are landmark proof systems. They identify the structural rules of weakening and contraction as notable inference rules, and they allow for an elegant statement and proof of both cut elimination and consistency for classical and intuitionistic logics. Among the undesirable features of those sequent calculi is that their inferences rules are low-level and frequently permute over each other. As a result, large-scale structures within sequent calculus proofs are hard to identify. In this paper, (...) we present a different approach to designing a sequent calculus for classical logic. Starting with Gentzen’s LK proof system, we examine the proof search meaning of his inference rules and classify those rules as involving either don’t care nondeterminism or don’t know nondeterminism. Based on that classification, we design the focused proof system LKF in which inference rules belong to one of two phases of proof construction depending on which flavor of nondeterminism they involve. We then prove that the cut rule and the general form of the initial rule are admissible in LKF. Finally, by showing that the inference rules for LK are all admissible in LKF, we can give a relative completeness proof for LKF provability with respect to LK provability. We shall also apply these properties of the LKF proof system to establish other meta-theoretic properties of classical logic, including Herbrand’s theorem. (shrink)

Gentzen's systems of natural deduction and sequent calculus were byproducts in his program of proving the consistency of arithmetic and analysis. It is suggested that the central component in his results on logical calculi was the use of a tree form for derivations. It allows the composition of derivations and the permutation of the order of application of rules, with a full control over the structure of derivations as a result. Recently found documents shed new light on the discovery (...) of these calculi. In particular, Gentzen set up five different forms of natural calculi and gave a detailed proof of normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. An early handwritten manuscript of his thesis shows that a direct translation from natural deduction to the axiomatic logic of Hilbert and Ackermann was, in addition to the influence of Paul Hertz, the second component in the discovery of sequent calculus. A system intermediate between the sequent calculus LI and axiomatic logic, denoted LIG in unpublished sources, is implicit in Gentzen's published thesis of 1934—35. The calculus has half rules, half “groundsequents,” and does not allow full cut elimination. Nevertheless, a translation from LI to LIG in the published thesis gives a subformula property for a complete class of derivations in LIG. After the thesis, Gentzen continued to work on variants of sequent calculi for ten more years, in the hope to find a consistency proof for arithmetic within an intuitionistic calculus. (shrink)

In advanced books and courses on logic (e.g. Sm], BM]) Gentzen-type systems or their dual, tableaux, are described as techniques for showing validity of formulae which are more practical than the usual Hilbert-type formalisms. People who have learnt these methods often wonder why the Automated Reasoning community seems to ignore them and prefers instead the resolution method. Some of the classical books on AD (such as CL], Lo]) do not mention these methods at all. Others (such as Ro]) do, (...) but the connections and reasons for preference remain unclear after reading them (at least to the present author, and obviously also the authors of OS], in which a theorem-prover, based exclusively on tableaux, is described). The confusion becomes greater when the reader is introduced to Kowalski's form of a clause ( Ko], Bu]), which is nothing but a Gentzen's sequent of atomic formulae, and when he realizes that resolution is just a form of a Cut, and so that while the elimination of cuts is the principal tool in proof-theory, its use is the main technique in AD! (shrink)

The way from linearly written derivations in natural deduction, introduced by Jaskowski and often used in textbooks, is a straightforward root-first translation. The other direction, instead, is tricky, because of the partially ordered assumption formulas in a tree that can get closed by the end of a derivation. An algorithm is defined that operates alternatively from the leaves and root of a derivation and solves the problem.

Nakamura proposed two three-valued temporal logics. We present two extended Gentzen-type formulations of these logics. Then we prove the soundness as well as the completeness theorem.

Given a π -institution I , a hierarchy of π -institutions I is constructed, for n ≥ 1. We call I the n-th order counterpart of I . The second-order counterpart of a deductive π -institution is a Gentzen π -institution, i.e. a π -institution associated with a structural Gentzen system in a canonical way. So, by analogy, the second order counterpart I of I is also called the “Gentzenization” of I . In the main result of (...) the paper, it is shown that I is strongly Gentzen , i.e. it is deductively equivalent to its Gentzenization via a special deductive equivalence, if and only if it has the deduction-detachment property. (shrink)

In this paper we are going to examine intuitionistic sequent calculus and its negation rules. We state new negation rules defining, in this way, a new sequent system. It will be used to clarify Gentzen's NJ and LJ systems isomorphism. These new negation rules are a direct reading of new natural deduction negation rules obtained by a slight modification of NJ rules. We also show that the new system is equivalent to LJ and that the Hauptsatz holds (...) for it. (shrink)

When considering m-sequents, it is always possible to obtain an m-sequent calculus VL for every m-valued logic (defined from an arbitrary finite algebra L of cardinality m) following for instance the works of the Vienna Group for Multiple-valued Logics. The Gentzen relations associated with the calculi VL are always finitely equivalential but might not be algebraizable. In this paper we associate an algebraizable 2-Gentzen relation with every sequent calculus VL in a uniform way, provided the original algebra L (...) has a reduct that is a distributive lattice or a pseudocomplemented distributive lattice. We also show that the sentential logic naturally associated with the provable sequents of this algebraizable Gentzen relation is the logic that preserves degrees of truth with respect to the original algebra (in contrast with the more common logic that merely preserves truth). Finally, for some particular logics we obtain 2-sequent calculi that axiomatize the algebraizable Gentzen relations obtained so far. (shrink)

Structural reasoning is simply reasoning that is governed exclusively by structural rules. In this context a proof system can be said to be structural if all of its inference rules are structural. A logic is considered to be structuralizable if it can be equipped with a sound and complete structural proof system. This paper provides a general formulation of the problem of structuralizability of a given logic, giving specific consideration to a family of logics that are based on (...) the Dunn–Belnap four-valued semantics. It is shown how sound and complete structural proof systems can be constructed for a spectrum of logics within different logical frameworks. (shrink)

Gentzen writes in the published version of his doctoral thesis Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen that he was able to prove the normalization theorem only for intuitionistic natural deduction, but not for classical. To cover the latter, he developed classical sequent calculus and proved a corresponding theorem, the famous cut elimination result. Its proof was organized so that a cut elimination result for an intuitionistic sequent calculus came out as a special case, namely the one in which the sequents (...) have at most one formula in the right, succedent part. Thus, there was no need for a direct proof of normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. The only traces of such a proof in the published thesis are some convertibilities, such as when an implication introduction is followed by an implication elimination [1934–35, II.5.13]. It remained to Dag Prawitz in 1965 to work out a proof of normalization. Another, less known proof was given also in 1965 by Andres Raggio.We found in February 2005 an early handwritten version of Gentzen's thesis, with exactly the above title, but with rather different contents: Most remarkably, it contains a detailed proof of normalization for what became the standard system of natural deduction. The manuscript is located in the Paul Bernays collection at the ETH-Zurichwith the signum Hs. 974: 271. Bernays must have gotten it well before the time of his being expelled from Göttingen on the basis of the racial laws in April 1933. (shrink)

Gentzen writes in the published version of his doctoral thesis Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen that he was able to prove the normalization theorem only for intuitionistic natural deduction, but not for classical. To cover the latter, he developed classical sequent calculus and proved a corresponding theorem, the famous cut elimination result. Its proof was organized so that a cut elimination result for an intuitionistic sequent calculus came out as a special case, namely the one in which the sequents (...) have at most one formula in the right, succedent part. Thus, there was no need for a direct proof of normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. The only traces of such a proof in the published thesis are some convertibilities, such as when an implication introduction is followed by an implication elimination [1934–35, II.5.13]. It remained to Dag Prawitz in 1965 to work out a proof of normalization. Another, less known proof was given also in 1965 by Andres Raggio.We found in February 2005 an early handwritten version of Gentzen's thesis, with exactly the above title, but with rather different contents: Most remarkably, it contains a detailed proof of normalization for what became the standard system of natural deduction. The manuscript is located in the Paul Bernays collection at the ETH-Zurichwith the signum Hs. 974: 271. Bernays must have gotten it well before the time of his being expelled from Göttingen on the basis of the racial laws in April 1933. (shrink)

In [1], we established Gentzenizations for a good range of relevant logics with distribution, but, in the process, we added inversion rules, which involved extra structural connectives, and also added the sentential constantt. Instead of eliminating them, we used conservative extension results to relate them back to the original logics. In [4], we eliminated the inversion rules andtand established a much simpler Gentzenization for the weak sentential relevant logicDW, and also for its quantificational extensionDWQ, but a restriction to normal formulae (...) (defined below) was required to enable these results to be proved. This method was quite general and hope was expressed about extending it to other relevant logics.In this paper, we develop an innovative method, which makes essential use of this restriction to normality, to establish two simple Gentzenizations for the normal formulae of the slightly weaker logic B, and then extend the method to other sentential contraction-less logics. To obtain the first of these Gentzenizations, for the logicsBandDW, we remove the two branching rules (F&) and (T∨), together with the structural connective ‘,’, to simplify the elimination of the inversion rules andt. We then eliminate the rules (T&) and (F∨), thus reducing the Gentzen system to one containing only ˜ and → and their four associated rules, and reduce the remaining types of structures to four simple finite types. Subsequently, we re-introduce (T&) and (F∨), and also (F&) and (T∨), to obtain the second Gentzenization, which contains ‘,’ but no structural rules. (shrink)

In [1], we established Gentzenizations for a good range of relevant logics with distribution, but, in the process, we added inversion rules, which involved extra structural connectives, and also added the sentential constantt. Instead of eliminating them, we used conservative extension results to relate them back to the original logics. In [4], we eliminated the inversion rules andtand established a much simpler Gentzenization for the weak sentential relevant logicDW, and also for its quantificational extensionDWQ, but a restriction to normal formulae (...) (defined below) was required to enable these results to be proved. This method was quite general and hope was expressed about extending it to other relevant logics.In this paper, we develop an innovative method, which makes essential use of this restriction to normality, to establish two simple Gentzenizations for the normal formulae of the slightly weaker logic B, and then extend the method to other sentential contraction-less logics. To obtain the first of these Gentzenizations, for the logicsBandDW, we remove the two branching rules (F&) and (T∨), together with the structural connective ‘,’, to simplify the elimination of the inversion rules andt. We then eliminate the rules (T&) and (F∨), thus reducing the Gentzen system to one containing only ˜ and → and their four associated rules, and reduce the remaining types of structures to four simple finite types. Subsequently, we re-introduce (T&) and (F∨), and also (F&) and (T∨), to obtain the second Gentzenization, which contains ‘,’ but no structural rules. (shrink)

Using the concept of notations for infinitary derivations we give an explanation of Takeuti's reduction steps on finite derivations (used in his consistency proof for Π1 1-CA) in terms of the more perspicious infinitary approach from [BS88].

We introduce a sequent system which is Gentzen algebraisable with orthomodular lattices as equivalent algebraic semantics, and therefore can be viewed as a calculus for orthomodular quantum logic. Its sequents are pairs of non-associative structures, formed via a structural connective whose algebraic interpretation is the Sasaki product on the left-hand side and its De Morgan dual on the right-hand side. It is a substructural calculus, because some of the standard structural sequent rules are restricted—by lifting all such restrictions, (...) one recovers a calculus for classical logic. (shrink)

We introduce two Gentzen-style sequent calculus axiomatizations for conservative extensions of basic propositional logic. Our first axiomatization is an ipmrovement of, in the sense that it has a kind of the subformula property and is a slight modification of. In this system the cut rule is eliminated. The second axiomatization is a classical conservative extension of basic propositional logic. Using these axiomatizations, we prove interpolation theorems for basic propositional logic.

We introduce a Gentzen style formulation of Basic Propositional Calculus(BPC), the logic that is interpreted in Kripke models similarly tointuitionistic logic except that the accessibility relation of eachmodel is not necessarily reflexive. The formulation is presented as adual-context style system, in which the left hand side of a sequent isdivided into two parts. Giving an interpretation of the sequents inKripke models, we show the soundness and completeness of the system withrespect to the class of Kripke models. The (...) cut-elimination theorem isproved in a syntactic way by modifying Gentzen's method. Thisdual-context style system exemplifies the effectiveness of dual-contextformulation in formalizing various non-classical logics. (shrink)

Gerhard Gentzen has been described as logic’s lost genius, whom Gödel called a better logician than himself. This work comprises articles by leading proof theorists, attesting to Gentzen’s enduring legacy to mathematical logic and beyond. The contributions range from philosophical reflections and re-evaluations of Gentzen’s original consistency proofs to the most recent developments in proof theory. Gentzen founded modern proof theory. His sequent calculus and natural deduction system beautifully explain the deep symmetries of logic. They (...) underlie modern developments in computer science such as automated theorem proving and type theory. (shrink)

The logic of the weak law of excluded middleKC p is obtained by adding the formula A A as an axiom scheme to Heyting's intuitionistic logicH p . A cut-free sequent calculus for this logic is given. As the consequences of the cut-elimination theorem, we get the decidability of the propositional part of this calculus, its separability, equality of the negationless fragments ofKC p andH p , interpolation theorems and so on. From the proof-theoretical point of view, the formulation presented (...) in this paper makes clearer the relations betweenKC p ,H p , and the classical logic. In the end, an interpretation of classical propositional logic in the propositional part ofKC p is given. (shrink)