In our previous paper [5], we have studied Kripke-type semantics for propositional logics without the contraction rule. In this paper, we will extend our argument to predicate logics without the structure rules. Similarly to the propositional case, we can not carry out Henkin's construction in the predicate case. Besides, there exists a difficulty that the rules of inference () and () are not always valid in our semantics. So, we have to introduce a notion of normal models.

Takahashi translation * is a translation which means reducing all of the redexes in a λ-term simultaneously. In [4] and [5], Takahashi gave a simple proof of the Church–Rosser confluence theorem by using the notion of parallel reduction and Takahashi translation. Our aim of this paper is to give a simpler proof of Church–Rosser theorem using only the notion of Takahashi translation.

In this note, we will study four implicational logicsB, BI, BB and BBI. In [5], Martin and Meyer proved that a formula is provable inBB if and only if is provable inBBI and is not of the form of » . Though it gave a positive solution to theP - W problem, their method was semantical and not easy to grasp. We shall give a syntactical proof of the syntactical relation betweenBB andBBI logics. It also includes a syntactical proof of (...) Powers and Dwyer's theorem that is proved semantically in [5]. Moreover, we shall establish the same relation betweenB andBI logics asBB andBBI logics. This relation seems to say thatB logic is meaningful, and so we think thatB logic is the weakest among meaningful logics. Therefore, by Theorem 1.1, our Gentzentype system forBI logic may be regarded as the most basic among all meaningful logics. It should be mentioned here that the first syntactical proof ofP - W problem is given by Misao Nagayama [6]. (shrink)

The main part of the proof of Kripke's completeness theorem for intuitionistic logic is Henkin's construction. We introduce a new Kripke-type semantics with semilattice structures for intuitionistic logic. The completeness theorem for this semantics can he proved without Henkin's construction.

The third author gave a natural deduction style proof system called the \-calculus for implicational fragment of classical logic in. In -calculus, 2015, Post-proceedings of the RIMS Workshop “Proof Theory, Computability Theory and Related Issues”, to appear), the fourth author gave a natural subsystem “intuitionistic \-calculus” of the \-calculus, and showed the system corresponds to intuitionistic logic. The proof is given with tree sequent calculus, but is complicated. In this paper, we introduce some reduction rules for the \-calculus, and give (...) a simple and purely syntactical proof to the theorem by use of the reduction. In addition, we show that we can give a computation model with rich expressive power with our system. (shrink)

The logical system P-W is an implicational non-commutative intuitionistic logic defined by axiom schemes B = (b → c) → (a → b) → a → c, B' = (a → b) → (b → c) → a → c, I = a → a with the rules of modus ponens and substitution. The P-W problem is a problem asking whether α = β holds if α → β and β → α are both provable in P-W. The answer is (...) affirmative. The first to prove this was E. P. Martin by a semantical method. In this paper, we give the first proof of Martin's theorem based on the theory of simply typed λ-calculus. This proof is obtained as a corollary to the main theorem of this paper, shown without using Martin's Theorem, that any closed hereditary right-maximal linear (HRML) λ-term of type α → α is βη-reducible to λ x.x. Here the HRML λ-terms correspond, via the Curry-Howard isomorphism, to the P-W proofs in natural deduction style. (shrink)

A reduction rule is introduced as a transformation of proof figures in implicational classical logic. Proof figures are represented as typed terms in a -calculus with a new constant P (()). It is shown that all terms with the same type are equivalent with respect to -reduction augmented by this P-reduction rule. Hence all the proofs of the same implicational formula are equivalent. It is also shown that strong normalization fails for P-reduction. Weak normalization is shown for P-reduction with another (...) reduction rule which simplifies of (( ) ) into an atomic type. (shrink)