scholarly journals Sequent Calculi for Orthologic with Strict Implication

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoaki Kawano
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Logic ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
Strict Implication

In this study, new sequent calculi for a minimal quantum logic (\(\bf MQL\)) are discussed that involve an implication. The sequent calculus \(\bf GO\) for \(\bf MQL\) was established by Nishimura, and it is complete with respect to ortho-models (O-models). As \(\bf GO\) does not contain implications, this study adopts the strict implication and constructs two new sequent calculi \(\mathbf{GOI}_1\) and \(\mathbf{GOI}_2\) as the expansions of \(\bf GO\). Both \(\mathbf{GOI}_1\) and \(\mathbf{GOI}_2\) are complete with respect to the O-models. In this study, the completeness and decidability theorems for these new systems are proven. Furthermore, some details pertaining to new rules and the strict implication are discussed.

scholarly journals Labeled Sequent Calculus for Orthologic

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoaki Kawano
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Logic ◽  
Classical Logic ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Sequent Calculi

Orthologic (OL) is non-classical logic and has been studied as a part of quantumlogic. OL is based on an ortholattice and is also called minimal quantum logic. Sequent calculus is used as a tool for proof in logic and has been examinedfor several decades. Although there are many studies on sequent calculus forOL, these sequent calculi have some problems. In particular, they do not includeimplication connective and they are mostly incompatible with the cut-eliminationtheorem. In this paper, we introduce new labeled sequent calculus called LGOI, and show that this sequent calculus solve the above problems. It is alreadyknown that OL is decidable. We prove that decidability is preserved when theimplication connective is added to OL.

scholarly journals The Method of Socratic Proofs Meets Correspondence Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-116
Author(s):  
Dorota Leszczyńska-Jasion ◽  
Yaroslav Petrukhin ◽  
Vasilyi Shangin
Keyword(s):  
Correspondence Analysis ◽  
Boolean Functions ◽  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
Classical Propositional Logic ◽  
Logic Of Questions ◽  
Proof Systems

The goal of this paper is to propose correspondence analysis as a technique for generating the so-called erotetic (i.e. pertaining to the logic of questions) calculi which constitute the method of Socratic proofs by Andrzej Wiśniewski. As we explain in the paper, in order to successfully design an erotetic calculus one needs invertible sequent-calculus-style rules. For this reason, the proposed correspondence analysis resulting in invertible rules can constitute a new foundation for the method of Socratic proofs. Correspondence analysis is Kooi and Tamminga's technique for designing proof systems. In this paper it is used to consider sequent calculi with non-branching (the only exception being the rule of cut), invertible rules for the negation fragment of classical propositional logic and its extensions by binary Boolean functions.

scholarly journals A general proof certification framework for modal logic

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1344-1378
Author(s):  
TOMER LIBAL ◽  
MARCO VOLPE
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Specification Language ◽  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
General Proof ◽  
Theorem Provers ◽  
Different Sources

One of the main issues in proof certification is that different theorem provers, even when designed for the same logic, tend to use different proof formalisms and produce outputs in different formats. The project ProofCert promotes the usage of a common specification language and of a small and trusted kernel in order to check proofs coming from different sources and for different logics. By relying on that idea and by using a classical focused sequent calculus as a kernel, we propose here a general framework for checking modal proofs. We present the implementation of the framework in a Prolog-like language and show how it is possible to specialize it in a simple and modular way in order to cover different proof formalisms, such as labelled systems, tableaux, sequent calculi and nested sequent calculi. We illustrate the method for the logic K by providing several examples and discuss how to further extend the approach.

Gentzen sequent calculi for some intuitionistic modal logics

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 596-623
Author(s):  
Zhe Lin ◽  
Minghui Ma
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Modal Logics ◽  
Cut Elimination ◽  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
Intuitionistic Propositional Logic ◽  
Propositional Language ◽  
Intuitionistic Modal Logics ◽  
Subformula Property ◽  
Gentzen Sequent Calculus

Abstract Intuitionistic modal logics are extensions of intuitionistic propositional logic with modal axioms. We treat with two modal languages ${\mathscr{L}}_\Diamond $ and $\mathscr{L}_{\Diamond ,\Box }$ which extend the intuitionistic propositional language with $\Diamond $ and $\Diamond ,\Box $, respectively. Gentzen sequent calculi are established for several intuitionistic modal logics. In particular, we introduce a Gentzen sequent calculus for the well-known intuitionistic modal logic $\textsf{MIPC}$. These sequent calculi admit cut elimination and subformula property. They are decidable.

Sequent Calculi for Some Strict Implication Logics

2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Ishigaki ◽  
R. Kashima
Keyword(s):  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
Strict Implication

scholarly journals POSITIVE LOGIC WITH ADJOINT MODALITIES: PROOF THEORY, SEMANTICS, AND REASONING ABOUT INFORMATION

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
MEHRNOOSH SADRZADEH ◽  
ROY DYCKHOFF
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Multiagent Systems ◽  
Epistemic Logic ◽  
Proof Theory ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Dynamic Epistemic Logic ◽  
Algebraic Semantics ◽  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
Closure Operators ◽  
Positive Logic

We consider a simple modal logic whose nonmodal part has conjunction and disjunction as connectives and whose modalities come in adjoint pairs, but are not in general closure operators. Despite absence of negation and implication, and of axioms corresponding to the characteristic axioms of (e.g.) T, S4, and S5, such logics are useful, as shown in previous work by Baltag, Coecke, and the first author, for encoding and reasoning about information and misinformation in multiagent systems. For the propositional-only fragment of such a dynamic epistemic logic, we present an algebraic semantics, using lattices with agent-indexed families of adjoint pairs of operators, and a cut-free sequent calculus. The calculus exploits operators on sequents, in the style of “nested” or “tree-sequent” calculi; cut-admissibility is shown by constructive syntactic methods. The applicability of the logic is illustrated by reasoning about the muddy children puzzle, for which the calculus is augmented with extra rules to express the facts of the muddy children scenario.

scholarly journals Dynamic sequent calculus for the logic of Epistemic Actions and Knowledge

10.29007/mwpp ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Greco ◽  
Alexander Kurz ◽  
Alessandra Palmigiano
Keyword(s):  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Relational Semantics ◽  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
Structural Rules ◽  
Epistemic Actions ◽  
Dynamic Logics ◽  
Display Calculi

We develop a family of display-style, cut-free sequent calculi for dynamic epistemic logics on both an intuitionistic and a classical base. Like the standard display calculi, these calculi are modular: just by modifying the structural rules according to Dosen’s principle, these calculi are generalizable both to different Dynamic Logics (Epistemic, Deontic, etc.) and to different propositional bases (Linear, Relevant, etc.). Moreover, the rules they feature agree with the standard relational semantics for dynamic epistemic logics.

scholarly journals Sequent calculus for logic of correlated knowledge

2011 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haroldas Giedra ◽  
Jūratė Sakalauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
Epistemic Logic ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Sequent Calculi

Sound and complete sequent calculi for general epistemic logic and logic of correlated knowledge are presented in this paper.  

Contraction-free sequent calculi for intuitionistic logic

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 795-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Dyckhoff
Keyword(s):  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Main Idea ◽  
Simple Algorithm ◽  
Propositional Calculus ◽  
Search Tree ◽  
Sequent Calculi ◽  
Proof Search ◽  
Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
Subformula Property

Gentzen's sequent calculus LJ, and its variants such as G3 [21], are (as is well known) convenient as a basis for automating proof search for IPC (intuitionistic propositional calculus). But a problem arises: that of detecting loops, arising from the use (in reverse) of the rule ⊃⇒ for implication introduction on the left. We describe below an equivalent calculus, yet another variant on these systems, where the problem no longer arises: this gives a simple but effective decision procedure for IPC.The underlying method can be traced back forty years to Vorob′ev [33], [34]. It has been rediscovered recently by several authors (the present author in August 1990, Hudelmaier [18], [19], Paulson [27], and Lincoln et al. [23]). Since the main idea is not plainly apparent in Vorob′ev's work, and there are mathematical applications [28], it is desirable to have a simple proof. We present such a proof, exploiting the Dershowtiz-Manna theorem [4] on multiset orderings.Consider the task of constructing proofs in Gentzen's sequent calculus LJ of intuitionistic sequents Γ⇒ G, where Γ is a set of assumption formulae and G is a formula (in the language of zero-order logic, using the nullary constant f [absurdity], the unary constant ¬ [negation, with ¬A =defA ⊃ f] and the binary constants &, ∨, and ⊃ [conjunction, disjunction, and implication respectively]). By the Hauptsatz [15], there is an apparently simple algorithm which breaks up the sequent, growing the proof tree until one reaches axioms (of the form Γ⇒ A where A is in Γ), or can make no further progress and must backtrack or even abandon the search. (Gentzen's argument in fact was to use the subformula property derived from the Hauptsatz to limit the size of the search tree. Došen [5] improves on this argument.)

Lyndon’s interpolation property for the logic of strict implication

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narbe Aboolian ◽  
Majid Alizadeh
Keyword(s):  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Interpolation Property ◽  
Basic Logic ◽  
Strict Implication

Abstract The main result proves Lyndon’s and Craig’s interpolation properties for the logic of strict implication ${\textsf{F}}$, with a purely syntactical method. A cut-free G3-style sequent calculus $ {\textsf{GF}} $ and its single-succedent variant $ \textsf{GF}_{\textsf{s}} $ are introduced. $ {\textsf{GF}} $ can be extended to a G3-variant of the sequent calculus GBPC3 for Visser’s basic logic. Also a simple syntactic proof of known embedding result of $ {\textsf{F}} $ into $ {\textsf{K}} $ is provided. An extension of $ {\textsf{F}} $, namely $ \textsf{FD}, $ is considered as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document