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)

We present a compact sequent calculus LKU for classical logic organized around the concept of polarization. Focused sequent calculi for classical, intuitionistic, and multiplicative–additive linear logics are derived as fragments of the host system by varying the sensitivity of specialized structural rules to polarity information. We identify a general set of criteria under which cut-elimination holds in such fragments. From cut-elimination we derive a unified proof of the completeness of focusing. Furthermore, each sublogic can interact with other fragments through cut. (...) We examine certain circumstances, for example, in which a classical lemma can be used in an intuitionistic proof while preserving intuitionistic provability. We also examine the possibility of defining classical–linear hybrid logics. (shrink)

We combine intuitionistic logic and classical logic into a new, first-order logic called polarized intuitionistic logic. This logic is based on a distinction between two dual polarities which we call red and green to distinguish them from other forms of polarization. The meaning of these polarities is defined model-theoretically by a Kripke-style semantics for the logic. Two proof systems are also formulated. The first system extends Gentzenʼs intuitionistic sequent calculus LJ. In addition, this system also bears essential similarities to Girardʼs (...) LC proof system for classical logic. The second proof system is based on a semantic tableau and extends Dragalinʼs multiple-conclusion version of intuitionistic sequent calculus. We show that soundness and completeness hold for these notions of semantics and proofs, from which it follows that cut is admissible in the proof systems and that the propositional fragment of the logic is decidable. (shrink)