Cut-elimination and Normalization Theorems for Connexive Logics over Wansing's C

It is well known how to use an intuitionistic meta-logic to specify natural deduction systems. It is also possible to use linear logic as a meta-logic for the specification of a variety of sequent calculus proof systems. Here, we show that if we adopt different focusingannotations for such linear logic specifications, a range of other proof systems can also be specified. In particular, we show that natural deduction (normal and non-normal), sequent proofs (with and without cut), tableaux, and proof systems using general elimination and general introduction rules can all be derived from essentially the same linear logic specification by altering focusing annotations. By using elementary linear logic equivalences and the completeness of focused proofs, we are able to derive new and modular proofs of the soundness and completeness of these various proofs systems for intuitionistic and classical logics.

Firstly, a natural deduction system in standard style is introduced for Nelson's para-consistent logic N4, and a normalization theorem is shown for this system. Secondly, a natural deduction system in sequent calculus style is introduced for N4, and a normalization theorem is shown for this system. Thirdly, a comparison between various natural deduction systems for N4 is given. Fourthly, a strong normalization theorem is shown for a natural deduction system for a sublogic of N4. Fifthly, a strong normalization theorem is proved for a typed λ-calculus for a neighbor of N4. Finally, it is remarked that the natural deduction frameworks presented can also be adapted for Wansing's basic connexive logic C.

In this paper we prove the strong normalization theorem for full first order classical N.D. (natural deduction)—full in the sense that all logical constants are taken as primitive. We also give a syntactic proof of the normal form theorem and (weak) normalization for the same system.The theorem has been stated several times, and some proofs appear in the literature. The first proof occurs in Statman [1], where full first order classical N.D. (with the elimination rules for ∨ and ∃ restricted to atomic conclusions) is embedded in a system for second order (propositional) intuitionistic N.D., for which a strong normalization theorem is proved using strongly impredicative methods.A proof of the normal form theorem and (weak) normalization theorem occurs in Seldin [1] as an extension of a proof of the same theorem for an N.D.-system for the intermediate logic called MH.The proof of the strong normalization theorem presented in this paper is obtained by proving that a certain kind of validity applies to all derivations in the system considered.The notion “validity” is adopted from Prawitz [2], where it is used to prove the strong normalization theorem for a restricted version of first order classical N.D., and is extended to cover the full system. Notions similar to “validity” have been used earlier by Tait (convertability), Girard (réducibilité) and Martin-Löf (computability).In Prawitz [2] the N.D. system is restricted in the sense that ∨ and ∃ are not treated as primitive logical constants, and hence the deductions can only be seen to be “natural” with respect to the other logical constants. To spell it out, the strong normalization theorem for the restricted version of first order classical N.D. together with the well-known results on the definability of the rules for ∨ and ∃ in the restricted system does not imply the normalization theorem for the full system.

A uniform calculus for linear logic is presented. The calculus has the form of a natural deduction system in sequent calculus style with general introduction and elimination rules. General elimination rules are motivated through an inversion principle, the dual form of which gives the general introduction rules. By restricting all the rules to their single-succedent versions, a uniform calculus for intuitionistic linear logic is obtained. The calculus encompasses both natural deduction and sequent calculus that are obtained as special instances from the uniform calculus. Other instances give all the invertibilities and partial invertibilities for the sequent calculus rules of linear logic. The calculus is normalizing and satisfies the subformula property for normal derivations.

We introduce new proof systems for propositional logic, simple deduction Frege systems, general deduction Frege systems, and nested deduction Frege systems, which augment Frege systems with variants of the deduction rule. We give upper bounds on the lengths of proofs in Frege proof systems compared to lengths in these new systems. As applications we give near-linear simulations of the propositional Gentzen sequent calculus and the natural deduction calculus by Frege proofs. The length of a proof is the number of lines (or formulas) in the proof.A general deduction Frege proof system provides at most quadratic speedup over Frege proof systems. A nested deduction Frege proof system provides at most a nearly linear speedup over Frege system where by “nearly linear” is meant the ratio of proof lengths is O(α(n)) where α is the inverse Ackermann function. A nested deduction Frege system can linearly simulate the propositional sequent calculus, the tree-like general deduction Frege calculus, and the natural deduction calculus. Hence a Frege proof system can simulate all those proof systems with proof lengths bounded by O(n . α(n)). Also we show that a Frege proof of n lines can be transformed into a tree-like Frege proof of O(n log n) lines and of height O(log n). As a corollary of this fact we can prove that natural deduction and sequent calculus tree-like systems simulate Frege systems with proof lengths bounded by O(n log n).

An explicit concatenation rule (EC) is proposed, obtained by generalizations and formalization of one of the most intuitive principle of abstract reasoning, which governs the composition of abstract derivations from the left and from the right at the same time, via the mediation of control clauses that occur in the position of the major premise. The sets of control clauses necessary to express various different calculi of natural deduction—standard natural deduction, natural deduction with general elimination rules, “bioriented” natural deduction and their variants—are considered, with a specific focus on a control clause for co-identity, a cut-like inference expressing the principle of linear substitution and on the effect of its addition to these calculi.

The structure of derivations in natural deduction is analyzed through isomorphism with a suitable sequent calculus, with twelve hidden convertibilities revealed in usual natural deduction. A general formulation of conjunction and implication elimination rules is given, analogous to disjunction elimination. Normalization through permutative conversions now applies in all cases. Derivations in normal form have all major premisses of elimination rules as assumptions. Conversion in any order terminates.

In this paper a uniform methodology to perform natural deduction over the family of linear, relevance and intuitionistic logics is proposed. The methodology follows the Labelled Deductive Systems (LDS) discipline, where the deductive process manipulates declarative units {f ormulaslabelled according to a labelling algebra. In the system described here, labels are either ground terms or variables of a given labelling language and inference rules manipulate formulas and labels simultaneously, generating (whenever necessary) constraints on the labels used in the rules. A set of natural deduction style inference rules is given, and the notion of a is dened which associates a labelled natural deduction style \structural derivation with a set of generated constraints. Algorithmic procedures, based on a technique called resource abduction, are dened to solve the constraints generated within a structural derivation, and their termination conditions discussed. A natural deduction is then dened to be correct with respect to a given substructural logic, if, under the condition that the algorithmic procedures terminate, the associated set of constraints is satised with respect to the underlying labelling algebra. Finally, soundness and completeness of the natural deduction system are proved with respect to the LKE tableaux system [6]. 1

In this paper a uniform methodology to perform Natural Deduction over the family of linear, relevance and intuitionistic logics is proposed. The methodology follows the Labelled Deductive Systems (LDS) discipline, where the deductive process manipulates declarative units – formulas labelled according to a labelling algebra. In the system described here, labels are either ground terms or variables of a given labelling language and inference rules manipulate formulas and labels simultaneously, generating (whenever necessary) constraints on the labels used in the rules. A set of natural deduction style inference rules is given, and the notion of a derivation is defined which associates a labelled natural deduction style “structural derivation” with a set of generated constraints. Algorithmic procedures, based on a technique called resource abduction, are defined to solve the constraints generated within a derivation, and their termination conditions discussed. A natural deduction derivation is correct with respect to a given substructural logic, if, under the condition that the algorithmic procedures terminate, the associated set of constraints is satisfied with respect to the underlying labelling algebra. This is shown by proving that the natural deduction system is sound and complete with respect to the LKE tableaux system [DG94].

A formulation of Lambek calculus in natural deduction is given. New rules for Lambek's multiplicative, non-commutative conjunction are proposed, rules for Lambek's two implications are standard. Rules for Lambek's conjunction are variants of general elimination rules: a symmetric elimination rule and its specializations, left elimination rule and right elimination rule. Conversions hold for all these rules, but only the symmetric elimination rule is fully permutable. Due to a natural transformation for left and right elimination rules to the symmetric elimination rule with partial empty sequences of assumptions and vice versa, there hold two normalization theorems, one with a minimal set and one with a maximal set of permutations.

Strong normalization of classical natural deduction with disjunctions

Variations and interpretations of naturality in call-by-name lambda-calculi with generalized applications

The system of natural deduction that originated with Gentzen (1934–5), and for which Prawitz (1965) proved a normalization theorem, is re-cast so that all elimination rules are in parallel form. This enables one to prove a very exigent normalization theorem. The normal forms that it provides have all disjunction-eliminations as low as possible, and have no major premisses for eliminations standing as conclusions of any rules. Normal natural deductions are isomorphic to cut-free, weakening-free sequent proofs. This form of normalization theorem renders unnecessary Gentzen's resort to sequent calculi in order to establish the desired metalogical properties of his logical system. Ultimate normal forms are well-adapted to the needs of the computational logician, affording valuable constraints on proof-search. They also provide an analysis of deductive relevance. There is a deep isomorphism between natural deductions and sequent proofs in the relevantized system.

The idea of an ‘inversion principle’, and the name itself, originated in the work of Paul Lorenzen in the 1950s, as a method to generate new admissible rules within a certain syntactic context. Some fifteen years later, the idea was taken up by Dag Prawitz to devise a strategy of normalization for natural deduction calculi (this being an analogue of Gentzen's cut-elimination theorem for sequent calculi). Later, Prawitz used the inversion principle again, attributing it with a semantic role. Still working in natural deduction calculi, he formulated a general type of schematic introduction rules to be matched – thanks to the idea supporting the inversion principle – by a corresponding general schematic Elimination rule. This was an attempt to provide a solution to the problem suggested by the often quoted note of Gentzen. According to Gentzen ‘it should be possible to display the elimination rules as unique functions of the corresponding introduction rules on the basis of certain requirements’. Many people have since worked on this topic, which can be appropriately seen as the birthplace of what are now referred to as “general elimination rules”, recently studied thoroughly by Sara Negri and Jan von Plato. In this study, we retrace the main threads of this chapter of proof-theoretical investigation, using Lorenzen's original framework as a general guide.

In the context of intuitionistic implicational logic, we achieve a perfect correspondence (technically an isomorphism) between sequent calculus and natural deduction, based on perfect correspondences between left-introduction and elimination, cut and substitution, and cut-elimination and normalisation. This requires an enlarged system of natural deduction that refines von Plato’s calculus. It is a calculus with modus ponens and primitive substitution; it is also a “coercion calculus”, in the sense of Cervesato and Pfenning. Both sequent calculus and natural deduction are presented as typing systems for appropriate extensions of the λ-calculus. The whole difference between the two calculi is reduced to the associativity of applicative terms (sequent calculus = right associative, natural deduction = left associative), and in fact the achieved isomorphism may be described as the mere inversion of that associativity. The novel natural deduction system is a “multiary” calculus, because “applicative terms” may exhibit a list of several arguments. But the combination of “multiarity” and left-associativity seems simply wrong, leading necessarily to non-local reduction rules (reason: normalisation, like cut-elimination, acts at the head of applicative terms, but natural deduction focuses at the tail of such terms). A solution is to extend natural deduction even further to a calculus that unifies sequent calculus and natural deduction, based on the unification of cut and substitution. In the unified calculus, a sequent term behaves like in the sequent calculus, whereas the reduction steps of a natural deduction term are interleaved with explicit steps for bringing heads to focus. A variant of the calculus has the symmetric role of improving sequent calculus in dealing with tail-active permutative conversions.