scholarly journals An application of parallel cut elimination in multiplicative linear logic to the Taylor expansion of proof nets

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 17, Issue 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jules Chouquet ◽  
Lionel Vaux Auclair

We examine some combinatorial properties of parallel cut elimination in multiplicative linear logic (MLL) proof nets. We show that, provided we impose a constraint on some paths, we can bound the size of all the nets satisfying this constraint and reducing to a fixed resultant net. This result gives a sufficient condition for an infinite weighted sum of nets to reduce into another sum of nets, while keeping coefficients finite. We moreover show that our constraints are stable under reduction. Our approach is motivated by the quantitative semantics of linear logic: many models have been proposed, whose structure reflect the Taylor expansion of multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) proof nets into infinite sums of differential nets. In order to simulate one cut elimination step in MELL, it is necessary to reduce an arbitrary number of cuts in the differential nets of its Taylor expansion. It turns out our results apply to differential nets, because their cut elimination is essentially multiplicative. We moreover show that the set of differential nets that occur in the Taylor expansion of an MELL net automatically satisfies our constraints. Interestingly, our nets are untyped: we only rely on the sequentiality of linear logic nets and the dynamics of cut elimination. The paths on which we impose bounds are the switching paths involved in the Danos--Regnier criterion for sequentiality. In order to accommodate multiplicative units and weakenings, our nets come equipped with jumps: each weakening node is connected to some other node. Our constraint can then be summed up as a bound on both the length of switching paths, and the number of weakenings that jump to a common node.

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 991-994
Author(s):  
LORENZO TORTORA DE FALCO

This special issue is devoted to some aspects of the new ideas that recently arose from the work of Thomas Ehrhard on the models of linear logic (LL) and of the λ-calculus. In some sense, the very origin of these ideas dates back to the introduction of LL in the 80s by Jean-Yves Girard. An obvious remark is that LL yielded a first logical quantitative account of the use of resources: the logical distinction between linear and non-linear formulas through the introduction of the exponential connectives. As explicitly mentioned by Girard in his first paper on the subject, the quantitative approach, to which he refers as ‘quantitative semantics,’ had a crucial influence on the birth of LL. And even though, at that time, it was given up for lack of ‘any logical justification’ (quoting the author), it contained rough versions of many concepts that were better understood, precisely introduced and developed much later, like differentiation and Taylor expansion for proofs. Around 2003, and thanks to the developments of LL and of the whole research area between logic and theoretical computer science, Ehrhard could come back to these fundamental intuitions and introduce the structure of finiteness space, allowing to reformulate this quantitative approach in a standard algebraic setting. The interpretation of LL in the category Fin of finiteness spaces and finitary relations suggested to Ehrhard and Regnier the differential extensions of LL and of the simply typed λ-calculus: Differential Linear Logic (DiLL) and the differential λ-calculus. The theory of LL proof-nets could be straightforwardly extended to DiLL, and a very natural notion of Taylor expansion of a proof-net (and of a λ-term) was introduced: an element of the Taylor expansion of the proof-net/term α is itself a (differential) proof-net/term and an approximation of α.


2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHELE PAGANI

We study full completeness and syntactical separability of MLL proof nets with the mix rule. The general method we use consists of first addressing these two questions in the less restrictive framework of proof structures, and then adapting the results to proof nets.At the level of proof structures, we find a semantical characterisation of their interpretations in relational semantics, and define an observational equivalence that is proved to be the equivalence induced by cut elimination. Hence, we obtain a semantical characterisation (in coherent spaces) and an observational equivalence for the proof nets with the mix rule.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harley Eades III ◽  
Valeria de Paiva

Abstract Full intuitionistic linear logic (FILL) was first introduced by Hyland and de Paiva, and went against current beliefs that it was not possible to incorporate all of the linear connectives, e.g. tensor, par and implication, into an intuitionistic linear logic. Bierman showed that their formalization of FILL did not enjoy cut elimination as such, but Bellin proposed a small change to the definition of FILL regaining cut elimination and using proof nets. In this note we adopt Bellin’s proposed change and give a direct proof of cut elimination for the sequent calculus. Then we show that a categorical model of FILL in the basic dialectica category is also a linear/non-linear model of Benton and a full tensor model of Melliès’ and Tabareau’s tensorial logic. We give a double-negation translation of linear logic into FILL that explicitly uses par in addition to tensor. Lastly, we introduce a new library to be used in the proof assistant Agda for proving properties of dialectica categories.


1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 543-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
DENIS BECHET

Almost a decade ago, Girard invented linear logic with the notion of a proof-net. Proof-nets are special graphs built from formulas, links and boxes. However, not all nets are proof-nets. First, they must be well constructed (we say that such graphs are proof-structures). Second, a proof-net is a proof-structure that corresponds to a sequential proof. It must satisfy a correctness criterion. One may wonder what this static criterion means for cut-elimination. We prove that every incorrect proof-structure (without cut) can be put in an environment where reductions lead to two kinds of basically wrong configurations: deadlocks and disconnected proof-structures. Thus, this proof says that there does not exist a bigger class of proof-structures than proof-nets where normalization does not lead to obviously bad configurations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 1204-1252
Author(s):  
PAOLO DI GIAMBERARDINO

In previous works, by importing ideas from game semantics (notably Faggian–Maurel–Curien'sludics nets), we defined a new class of multiplicative/additive polarized proof nets, calledJ-proof nets. The distinctive feature of J-proof nets with respect to other proof net syntaxes, is the possibility of representing proof nets which are partially sequentialized, by usingjumps(that is, untyped extra edges) as sequentiality constraints. Starting from this result, in the present work, we extend J-proof nets to the multiplicative/exponential fragment, in order to take into account structural rules: More precisely, we replace the familiar linear logic notion of exponential box with a less restricting one (calledcone) defined by means of jumps. As a consequence, we get a syntax for polarized nets where, instead of a structure of boxes nested one into the other, we have one of cones which can bepartially overlapping. Moreover, we define cut-elimination for exponential J-proof nets, proving, by a variant of Gandy's method, that even in case of ‘superposed’ cones, reduction enjoys confluence and strong normalization.


1991 ◽  
Vol 20 (372) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Brown ◽  
Doug Gurr

<p>Linear logic differs from intuitionistic logic primarily in the absence of the structural rules of weakening and contraction. Weakening allows us to prove a proposition in the context of irrelevant or unused premises, while contraction allows us to use a premise an arbitrary number of times. Linear logic has been called a ''resource-conscious'' logic, since the premises of a sequent must appear exactly as many times as they are used.</p><p>In this paper, we address this ''experimental nature'' by presenting a non-commutative intuitionistic linear logic with several attractive properties. Our logic discards even the limited commutativityof Yetter's logic in which cyclic permutations of formulae are permitted. It arises in a natural way from the system of intuitionistic linear logic presented by Girard and Lafont, and we prove a cut elimination theorem. In linear logic, the rules of weakening and contraction are recovered in a restricted sense by the introduction of the exponential modality(!). This recaptures the expressive power of intuitionistic logic. In our logic the modality ! recovers the non-commutative analogues of these structural rules. However, the most appealing property of our logic is that it is both sound and complete with respect to interpretation in a natural class of models which we call relational quantales.</p>


2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
HERMAN GEUVERS ◽  
IRIS LOEB

In this paper, we introduce the formalism of deduction graphs as a generalisation of both Gentzen–Prawitz style natural deduction and Fitch style flag deduction. The advantage of this formalism is that, as with flag deductions (but not natural deduction), subproofs can be shared, but the linearisation used in flag deductions is avoided. Our deduction graphs have both nodes and boxes, which are collections of nodes that also form a node themselves. This is reminiscent of the bigraphs of Milner, where the link graph describes the nodes and edges and the place graph describes the nesting of nodes. We give a precise definition of deduction graphs, together with some illustrative examples. Furthermore, we analyse their computational behaviour by studying the process of cut-elimination and by defining translations from deduction graphs to simply typed lambda terms. From a slight variation of this translation, we conclude that the process of cut-elimination is strongly normalising. The translation to simple type theory removes quite a lot of structure, so we also propose a translation to a context calculus with lets that faithfully captures the structure of deduction graphs. The proof nets of linear logic also offer a graph-like presentation of natural deduction, and we point out some similarities between the two formalisms.


2002 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 449-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAUL-ANDRÉ MELLIÈS

We construct a double category [Dscr ] of proof-nets in multiplicative linear logic (MLL). Its horizontal arrows are MLL modules (subnets of well-formed nets), its vertical arrows model side-effects, and its double cells interpret the cut-elimination procedure. The categorical model is modular in the sense that every computation of a composite module (π1; π2) factors out as the separate and interacting computations of the two subcomponents π1 and π2. This enables us to trace MLL modules in the course of cut-elimination, and analyze their behaviour in time.


2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 789-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLEM HEIJLTJES ◽  
LUTZ STRAßBURGER
Keyword(s):  

In this paper, it is proved that Girard's proof nets for multiplicative linear logic characterize free semi-star-autonomous categories.


2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIE KERJEAN ◽  
CHRISTINE TASSON

In this paper, we describe a denotational model of Intuitionist Linear Logic which is also a differential category. Formulas are interpreted as Mackey-complete topological vector space and linear proofs are interpreted as bounded linear functions. So as to interpret non-linear proofs of Linear Logic, we use a notion of power series between Mackey-complete spaces, generalizing entire functions in $\mathbb{C}$. Finally, we get a quantitative model of Intuitionist Differential Linear Logic, with usual syntactic differentiation and where interpretations of proofs decompose as a Taylor expansion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document