Proof-theoretic Methods Research Articles

Mathematical Logic: Proof Theory, Constructive Mathematics

The Workshop ‘Mathematical Logic: Proof Theory, Constructive Mathematics’ focused on proof-theoretic research on the foundations of mathematics, on the extraction of explicit computational content from given proofs in core areas of ordinary mathematics using proof-theoretic methods as well as on topics in proof complexity. The workshop contributed to the following research strands:

Decidability of topological quasi-Boolean algebras

A sequent calculus S for the variety tqBa of all topological quasi-Boolean algebras is established. Using a construction of syntactic finite algebraic model, the finite model property of S is shown, and thus the decidability of S is obtained. We also introduce two non-distributive variants of topological quasi-Boolean algebras. For the variety TDM 5 of all topological De Morgan lattices with the axiom 5, we establish a sequent calculus S 5 and prove that the cut elimination holds for it. Consequently the decidability of S 5 is established. Furthermore, this proof-theoretic method is applied to some subvarieties of TDM 5 .

Defeasible Normative Reasoning: A Proof-Theoretic Integration of Logical Argumentation

We present a novel computational approach to resolving conflicts among norms by nonmonotonic normative reasoning (in constrained I/O logics). Our approach extends standard sequent-based proof systems and makes them more adequate to nonmonotonic reasoning by adding to the sequents annotations that keep track of what is known about the defeasible status of the derived sequents. This makes transparent the reasons according to which norms should be applicable or inapplicable, and accordingly the sequents that make use of such norms are accepted or retracted. We also show that this proof theoretic method has tight links to the semantics of formal argumentation frameworks. The outcome of this paper is thus a threefold characterization result that relates, in the context of nonmonotonic normative reasoning, three traditional ingredients of AI-based reasoning methods: maximally consistent sets of premises (in constrained I/O logics), derived sequents (which are accepted in corresponding annotated sequent calculi), and logical arguments (that belong to the grounded extensions of the induced logical argumentation frameworks).

Is, Ought, and Cut

In this paper we use proof-theoretic methods, specifically sequent calculi, admissibility of cut within them and the resultant subformula property, to examine a range of philosophically-motivated deontic logics. We show that for all of those logics it is a (meta)theorem that the Special Hume Thesis holds, namely that no purely normative conclusion follows non-trivially from purely descriptive premises (nor vice versa). In addition to its interest on its own, this also illustrates one way in which proof theory sheds light on philosophically substantial questions.

Proof Compression and NP Versus PSPACE II: Addendum

In our previous work we proved the conjecture NP = PSPACE by advanced proof theoretic methods that combined Hudelmaier’s cut-free sequent calculus for minimal logic (HSC) with the horizontal compressing in the corresponding minimal Prawitz-style natural deduction (ND). In this Addendum we show how to prove a weaker result NP = coNP without referring to HSC. The underlying idea (due to the second author) is to omit full minimal logic and compress only “naive” normal tree-like ND refutations of the existence of Hamiltonian cycles in given non-Hamiltonian graphs, since the Hamiltonian graph problem in NPcomplete. Thus, loosely speaking, the proof of NP = coNP can be obtained by HSC-elimination from our proof of NP = PSPACE.

Mathematical Logic: Proof Theory, Constructive Mathematics

The Workshop ‘Mathematical Logic:Proof Theory, Constructive Mathematics’ focused on proofs both as formal derivations in deductive systems as well as on the extraction of explicit computational content from given proofs in core areas of ordinary mathematics using proof-theoretic methods. The workshop contributed to the following research strands:

A Proof Theory for the Logic of Provability in True Arithmetic

In a classical 1976 paper, Solovay proved the arithmetical completeness of the modal logic GL; provability of a formula in GL coincides with provability of its arithmetical interpretations of it in Peano Arithmetic. In that paper, he also provided an axiomatic system GLS and proved arithmetical completeness for GLS; provability of a formula in GLS coincides with truth of its arithmetical interpretations in the standard model of arithmetic. Proof theory for GL has been studied intensively up to the present day. However, it might sound somewhat strange that no proof theory for GLS was ever developed nor even suggested thus far, except for the axiomatic system offered by Solovay. In this paper, we develop a proof theory for GLS based on the sequent calculus method. We provide a sequent calculus for GLS and prove the cut-elimination and some standard consequences of it: the interpolation and definability theorems. As another consequence of cut-elimination, we also prove the equivalence of GL and GLS with respect to a special form of formulas which we call Godel sentences, using a purely proof-theoretical method.

Proof Theory for Positive Logic with Weak Negation

Proof-theoretic methods are developed for subsystems of Johansson’s logic obtained by extending the positive fragment of intuitionistic logic with weak negations. These methods are exploited to establish properties of the logical systems. In particular, cut-free complete sequent calculi are introduced and used to provide a proof of the fact that the systems satisfy the Craig interpolation property. Alternative versions of the calculi are later obtained by means of an appropriate loop-checking history mechanism. Termination of the new calculi is proved, and used to conclude that the considered logical systems are PSPACE-complete.

Uniform interpolation and the existence of sequent calculi

This paper presents a uniform and modular method to prove uniform interpolation for several intermediate and intuitionistic modal logics. The proof-theoretic method uses sequent calculi that are extensions of the terminating sequent calculus G4ip for intuitionistic propositional logic. It is shown that whenever the rules in a calculus satisfy certain structural properties, the corresponding logic has uniform interpolation. It follows that the intuitionistic versions of K and KD (without the diamond operator) have uniform interpolation. It also follows that no intermediate or intuitionistic modal logic without uniform interpolation has a sequent calculus satisfying those structural properties, thereby establishing that except for the seven intermediate logics that have uniform interpolation, no intermediate logic has such a sequent calculus.

Representing definable functions of HAω by neighbourhood functions

Brouwer (1927) claimed that every function from the Baire space to natural numbers is induced by a neighbourhood function whose domain admits bar induction. We show that Brouwer's claim is provable in Heyting arithmetic in all finite types (HAω) for definable functions of the system. The proof does not rely on elaborate proof theoretic methods such as normalisation or ordinal analysis. Instead, we internalise in HAω the dialogue tree interpretation of Gödel's system T due to Escardó (2013). The interpretation determines a syntactic translation of terms, which yields a neighbourhood function from a closed term of HAω with the required property. As applications of this result, we prove some well-known properties of HAω: uniform continuity of definable functions from NN to N on the Cantor space; closure under the rule of bar induction; and closure of bar recursion for the lowest type with a definable stopping function.

Multicomponent proof-theoretic method for proving interpolation properties

Proof-theoretic method has been successfully used almost from the inception of interpolation properties to provide efficient constructive proofs thereof. Until recently, the method was limited to sequent calculi (and their notational variants), despite the richness of generalizations of sequent structures developed in structural proof theory in the meantime. In this paper, we provide a systematic and uniform account of the recent extension of this proof-theoretic method to hypersequents, nested sequents, and labelled sequents for normal modal logic. The method is presented in terms and notation easily adaptable to other similar formalisms, and interpolant transformations are stated for typical rule types rather than for individual rules.

Sequent Calculi for Global Modal Consequence Relations

The global consequence relation of a normal modal logic $$\Lambda $$ is formulated as a global sequent calculus which extends the local sequent theory of $$\Lambda $$ with global sequent rules. All global sequent calculi of normal modal logics admits global cut elimination. This property is utilized to show that decidability is preserved from the local to global sequent theories of any normal modal logic over $$\mathsf {K4}$$ . The preservation of Craig interpolation property from local to global sequent theories of any normal modal logic is shown by proof-theoretic method.

A Polynomial Rate of Asymptotic Regularity for Compositions of Projections in Hilbert Space

This paper provides an explicit polynomial rate of asymptotic regularity for (in general inconsistent) feasibility problems in Hilbert space. In particular, we give a quantitative version of Bauschke’s solution of the zero displacement problem as well as of various generalizations of this problem. The results in this paper have been obtained by applying a general proof-theoretic method for the extraction of effective bounds from proofs due to the author (‘proof mining’) to Bauschke’s proof.

Truth, Partial Logic and Infinitary Proof Systems

In this paper we apply proof theoretic methods used for classical systems in order to obtain upper bounds for systems in partial logic. We focus on a truth predicate interpreted in a Kripke style way via strong Kleene; whereas the aim is to connect harmoniously the partial version of Kripke–Feferman with its intended semantics. The method we apply is based on infinitary proof systems containing an $$\omega $$ -rule.

Three-valued semantics for hybrid MKNF knowledge bases revisited

Knorr et al. (2011) [9] formulated a three-valued formalism for the logic of Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure (MKNF), and proposed a well-founded semantics for hybrid MKNF knowledge bases. The main results state that if a hybrid MKNF knowledge base has a three-valued MKNF model, its well-founded MKNF model exists, which is unique and can be computed by an alternating fixpoint construction. However, we show that these claims are erroneous. The goal of this paper is two-fold. First, we provide insight into why these claims fail to hold. This leads to a classification of hybrid MKNF knowledge bases into a hierarchy of four classes, of which the smallest one is what works for the well-founded semantics proposed by Knorr et al. After that, we characterize three-valued MKNF models into what we call stable partitions, which are similar to partial stable models in logic programming. The intuitive notion of stable partitions allows us to discover a new proof-theoretic method to determine whether a three-valued MKNF model exists for a given hybrid MKNF knowledge base. We can guess partial partitions and verify their stability by computing alternating fixpoints and by performing a consistency check. This algorithm can be applied to compute all three-valued MKNF models, as well as all two-valued ones originally formulated by Motik and Rosati for query answering. As a result, our work provides a uniform characterization of well-founded, two-valued, and all three-valued MKNF models, in terms of stable partitions and the alternating fixpoint construction.

Density revisited

In this (part survey) paper, we revisit algebraic and proof-theoretic methods developed by Franco Montagna and his co-authors for proving that the chains (totally ordered members) of certain varieties of semilinear residuated lattices embed into dense chains of these varieties, a key step in establishing standard completeness results for fuzzy logics. Such varieties are precisely the varieties that are generated as quasivarieties by their dense chains. By showing that all dense chains satisfy a certain e-cyclicity equation, we give a short proof that the variety of all semilinear residuated lattices is not densifiable (first proved by Wang and Zhao). We then adapt the Jenei---Montagna standard completeness proof for monoidal t-norm logic to show that any variety of integral semilinear residuated lattices axiomatized by additional lattice-ordered monoid equations is densifiable. We also generalize known results to show that certain varieties of cancellative semilinear residuated lattices are densifiable. Finally, we revisit the Metcalfe---Montagna proof-theoretic approach, which establishes densifiability of a variety via the elimination of a density rule for a suitable hypersequent calculus, focussing on the case of commutative semilinear residuated lattices.

Proof theory for lattice-ordered groups

Proof-theoretic methods are developed and exploited to establish properties of the variety of lattice-ordered groups. In particular, a hypersequent calculus with a cut rule is used to provide an alternative syntactic proof of the generation of the variety by the lattice-ordered group of automorphisms of the real number chain. Completeness is also established for an analytic (cut-free) hypersequent calculus using cut elimination and it is proved that the equational theory of the variety is co-NP complete.

The bounded proof property via step algebras and step frames

The paper introduces semantic and algorithmic methods for establishing a variant of the analytic subformula property (called ‘the bounded proof property’, bpp) for modal propositional logics. The bpp is much weaker property than full cut-elimination, but it is nevertheless sufficient for establishing decidability results. Our methodology originated from tools and techniques developed on one side within the algebraic/coalgebraic literature dealing with free algebra constructions and on the other side from classical correspondence theory in modal logic. As such, our approach is orthogonal to recent literature based on proof-theoretic methods and, in a way, complements it.We applied our method to simple logics such as K, T, K4, S4, etc., where establishing basic metatheoretical properties becomes a completely automatic task (the related proof obligations can be instantaneously discharged by current first-order provers). For more complicated logics, some ingenuity is still needed, however we were able to successfully apply our uniform method to the well-known cut-free system for GL, to Goré's cut-free system for S4.3, and to Ohnishi–Matsumoto's analytic system for S5.

UNIFORM INTERPOLATION IN SUBSTRUCTURAL LOGICS

AbstractUniform interpolation property of a given logic is a stronger form of Craig’s interpolation property where both pre-interpolant and post-interpolant always exist uniformly for any provable implication in the logic. It is known that there exist logics, e.g., modal propositional logic S4, which have Craig’s interpolation property but do not have uniform interpolation property. The situation is even worse for predicate logics, as classical predicate logic does not have uniform interpolation property as pointed out by L. Henkin.In this paper, uniform interpolation property of basic substructural logics is studied by applying the proof-theoretic method introduced by A. Pitts (Pitts, 1992). It is shown that uniform interpolation property holds even for their predicate extensions, as long as they can be formalized by sequent calculi without contraction rules. For instance, uniform interpolation property of full Lambek predicate calculus, i.e., the substructural logic without any structural rule, and of both linear and affine predicate logics without exponentials are proved.

Term extraction and Ramsey's theorem for pairs

AbstractIn this paper we study with proof-theoretic methods the function(al)s provably recursive relative to Ramsey's theorem for pairs and the cohesive principle (COH).Our main result on COH is that the type 2 functional provably recursive fromare primitive recursive. This also provides a uniform method to extract bounds from proofs that use these principles. As a consequence we obtain a new proof of the fact thatis-conservative over PRA.Recent work of the first author showed thatis equivalent to a weak variant of the Bolzano-Weierstraß principle. This makes it possible to use our results to analyze not only combinatorial but also analytical proofs.For Ramsey's theorem for pairs and two colorswe obtain the upper bounded that the type 2 functional provable recursive relative toare inT1. This is the fragment of Gödel's systemTcontaining only type 1 recursion—roughly speaking it consists of functions of Ackermann type. With this we also obtain a uniform method for the extraction ofT1-bounds from proofs that use. Moreover, this yields a new proof of the fact thatis-conservative over.The results are obtained in two steps: in the first step a term including Skolem functions for the above principles is extracted from a given proof. This is done using Gödel's functional interpretation. After this the term is normalized, such that only specific instances of the Skolem functions are used. In the second step this term is interpreted using-comprehension. The comprehension is then eliminated in favor of induction using either elimination of monotone Skolem functions (for COH) or Howard's ordinal analysis of bar recursion (for).