Dynamic Epistemic Logic Displayed
|
|
- Harvey Booker
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 / 43 Dynamic Epistemic Logic Displayed Giuseppe Greco & Alexander Kurz & Alessandra Palmigiano April 19, 2013 ALCOP
2 2 / 43 1 Motivation Proof-theory meets coalgebra 2 From global- to local-rules calculi Axiomatic Calculi Natural Deduction Calculi Sequent Calculi Cut-elimination 3 From holistic to modular calculi Display Calculi Propositions- and Structures-Language Display Postulates and Display Property Structural Rules Operational Rules No-standard Rules 4 Conclusions Counterexample in Kripke semantics Interpretation in final coalgebra
3 Motivation Proof-theory meets coalgebra 3 / 43 We introduce a display calculus for the Baltag-Moss-Solecki logic of Epistemic Actions and Knowledge (EAK). This calculus is cut-free and complete w.r.t. the standard Hilbert-style presentation of EAK, and moreover, it features a richer language than EAK, in which all logical operations have adjoints. Some of the additional dynamic logical operators do not have an interpretation in the standard Kripke semantics of EAK, but do have a natural interpretation in the final coalgebra. This proof-theoretic motivation revives the interest in the global semantics for dynamic epistemic logics.
4 Motivation Proof-theory meets coalgebra 3 / 43 We introduce a display calculus for the Baltag-Moss-Solecki logic of Epistemic Actions and Knowledge (EAK). This calculus is cut-free and complete w.r.t. the standard Hilbert-style presentation of EAK, and moreover, it features a richer language than EAK, in which all logical operations have adjoints. Some of the additional dynamic logical operators do not have an interpretation in the standard Kripke semantics of EAK, but do have a natural interpretation in the final coalgebra. This proof-theoretic motivation revives the interest in the global semantics for dynamic epistemic logics.
5 Motivation Proof-theory meets coalgebra 3 / 43 We introduce a display calculus for the Baltag-Moss-Solecki logic of Epistemic Actions and Knowledge (EAK). This calculus is cut-free and complete w.r.t. the standard Hilbert-style presentation of EAK, and moreover, it features a richer language than EAK, in which all logical operations have adjoints. Some of the additional dynamic logical operators do not have an interpretation in the standard Kripke semantics of EAK, but do have a natural interpretation in the final coalgebra. This proof-theoretic motivation revives the interest in the global semantics for dynamic epistemic logics.
6 From global- to local-rules calculi Axiomatic Calculi 4 / 43 Axiomatic calculi á la Hilbert were the first to appear and, typically, are characterized by more axioms and few inference rules, at the limit only one (Modus Ponens). The objects manipulated in such calculi are formulas. The meaning of logical symbols is implicitly defined by the axioms that, also, set their mutual relations. Again, the axioms allow only an indirect control of the structure. 1 (A ((A A) A)) ((A (A A)) (A A)) 2 A ((A A) A) 3 (A (A A)) (A A) 4 A (A A) 5 A A 1 2 MP 3 4 MP 5 where the leaves are all instantiations of axioms.
7 From global- to local-rules calculi Axiomatic Calculi 4 / 43 Axiomatic calculi á la Hilbert were the first to appear and, typically, are characterized by more axioms and few inference rules, at the limit only one (Modus Ponens). The objects manipulated in such calculi are formulas. The meaning of logical symbols is implicitly defined by the axioms that, also, set their mutual relations. Again, the axioms allow only an indirect control of the structure. 1 (A ((A A) A)) ((A (A A)) (A A)) 2 A ((A A) A) 3 (A (A A)) (A A) 4 A (A A) 5 A A 1 2 MP 3 4 MP 5 where the leaves are all instantiations of axioms.
8 From global- to local-rules calculi Axiomatic Calculi 4 / 43 Axiomatic calculi á la Hilbert were the first to appear and, typically, are characterized by more axioms and few inference rules, at the limit only one (Modus Ponens). The objects manipulated in such calculi are formulas. The meaning of logical symbols is implicitly defined by the axioms that, also, set their mutual relations. Again, the axioms allow only an indirect control of the structure. 1 (A ((A A) A)) ((A (A A)) (A A)) 2 A ((A A) A) 3 (A (A A)) (A A) 4 A (A A) 5 A A 1 2 MP 3 4 MP 5 where the leaves are all instantiations of axioms.
9 From global- to local-rules calculi Axiomatic Calculi 5 / 43 Advantages: proofs on the system are simplified for systems with few and simple inference rules; the space of logics can be reconstructed in a modular way: adding incremently axioms to a previous axiomatization give other logics. Disadvantages: the proofs in the system are long and often unnatural; the meaning of connectives is global: e.g. the axiom (A B) ((C B) (A C B)) involves more connectives; the derivations are global: e.g. only Modus Ponens is used to prove all theorems.
10 From global- to local-rules calculi Axiomatic Calculi 5 / 43 Advantages: proofs on the system are simplified for systems with few and simple inference rules; the space of logics can be reconstructed in a modular way: adding incremently axioms to a previous axiomatization give other logics. Disadvantages: the proofs in the system are long and often unnatural; the meaning of connectives is global: e.g. the axiom (A B) ((C B) (A C B)) involves more connectives; the derivations are global: e.g. only Modus Ponens is used to prove all theorems.
11 6 / 43 From global- to local-rules calculi Natural Deduction Calculi Natural deduction calculi á la the Gentzen are characterized by the use of assumptions (introduced by an explicit rule) and different inference rules for different connectives. The objects manipulated in such calculi are formulas. The meaning of the logical symbols is explicitly defined (by Intr/Elim Rule): an operational content corresponds to each connective. Introduction Rules for implication and negation discharge assumptions: appropriate restrictions allow some control of the structure. [A B] 1 [ A B] 2 (A B) (A B) ( A B) A B ( A B) [A B] 3 E A [ A] 4 I A A 3 I (A B) 2 I 1,3,5 I (A B) I [A B] 5 E B [ B] 6 I B B 5 I (A B) 4,6 E
12 6 / 43 From global- to local-rules calculi Natural Deduction Calculi Natural deduction calculi á la the Gentzen are characterized by the use of assumptions (introduced by an explicit rule) and different inference rules for different connectives. The objects manipulated in such calculi are formulas. The meaning of the logical symbols is explicitly defined (by Intr/Elim Rule): an operational content corresponds to each connective. Introduction Rules for implication and negation discharge assumptions: appropriate restrictions allow some control of the structure. [A B] 1 [ A B] 2 (A B) (A B) ( A B) A B ( A B) [A B] 3 E A [ A] 4 I A A 3 I (A B) 2 I 1,3,5 I (A B) I [A B] 5 E B [ B] 6 I B B 5 I (A B) 4,6 E
13 6 / 43 From global- to local-rules calculi Natural Deduction Calculi Natural deduction calculi á la the Gentzen are characterized by the use of assumptions (introduced by an explicit rule) and different inference rules for different connectives. The objects manipulated in such calculi are formulas. The meaning of the logical symbols is explicitly defined (by Intr/Elim Rule): an operational content corresponds to each connective. Introduction Rules for implication and negation discharge assumptions: appropriate restrictions allow some control of the structure. [A B] 1 [ A B] 2 (A B) (A B) ( A B) A B ( A B) [A B] 3 E A [ A] 4 I A A 3 I (A B) 2 I 1,3,5 I (A B) I [A B] 5 E B [ B] 6 I B B 5 I (A B) 4,6 E
14 From global- to local-rules calculi Natural Deduction Calculi 7 / 43 Advantages: the proofs in the system are natural; the connectives are introduced one by one (this is in the direction of proof-theoretic semantics); Disadvantages: the derivations are global: assumptions tipically are discharged after many steps in a derivation; it is not simple to reconstruct the space of the logics; it is difficult to obtain natural deduction calculi for non-classical or modal logics.
15 From global- to local-rules calculi Natural Deduction Calculi 7 / 43 Advantages: the proofs in the system are natural; the connectives are introduced one by one (this is in the direction of proof-theoretic semantics); Disadvantages: the derivations are global: assumptions tipically are discharged after many steps in a derivation; it is not simple to reconstruct the space of the logics; it is difficult to obtain natural deduction calculi for non-classical or modal logics.
16 8 / 43 From global- to local-rules calculi Sequent Calculi Sequent calculi á la Gentzen are characterized by a single axiom (Identity), the use of assumptions and conclusions, by different inference rules for different connectives and for different structural operations. Objects manipulated in such calculations are sequents: Γ where Γ and are (possibly empty) sequences of formulas separated by a (poliadyc) comma. The meaning of logical symbols is explicitly defined (by Left/Right Introduction Rule). The structural rules allow a direct control of the structure. A A W A, A A, A A B, A E A, B B A B, A B A B, A B W B, B B, B A B, B B, A B A B A B ( A B)
17 8 / 43 From global- to local-rules calculi Sequent Calculi Sequent calculi á la Gentzen are characterized by a single axiom (Identity), the use of assumptions and conclusions, by different inference rules for different connectives and for different structural operations. Objects manipulated in such calculations are sequents: Γ where Γ and are (possibly empty) sequences of formulas separated by a (poliadyc) comma. The meaning of logical symbols is explicitly defined (by Left/Right Introduction Rule). The structural rules allow a direct control of the structure. A A W A, A A, A A B, A E A, B B A B, A B A B, A B W B, B B, B A B, B B, A B A B A B ( A B)
18 8 / 43 From global- to local-rules calculi Sequent Calculi Sequent calculi á la Gentzen are characterized by a single axiom (Identity), the use of assumptions and conclusions, by different inference rules for different connectives and for different structural operations. Objects manipulated in such calculations are sequents: Γ where Γ and are (possibly empty) sequences of formulas separated by a (poliadyc) comma. The meaning of logical symbols is explicitly defined (by Left/Right Introduction Rule). The structural rules allow a direct control of the structure. A A W A, A A, A A B, A E A, B B A B, A B A B, A B W B, B B, B A B, B B, A B A B A B ( A B)
19 From global- to local-rules calculi Sequent Calculi 9 / 43 Advantages: the derivations are local; the proofs in the system are automatizable (if the calculus enjoy cut-elimination); a distinction between connectives and structure is introduced (this is in the direction of proof-theoretic semantics). Disadvantages: the space of logics cannot be reconstructed in a modular way (if the calculus is non-standard, ı.e. as usual for modal logics); it is not simple to obtain sequent calculi for substructural or modal logics (with the sub-formula property).
20 From global- to local-rules calculi Sequent Calculi 9 / 43 Advantages: the derivations are local; the proofs in the system are automatizable (if the calculus enjoy cut-elimination); a distinction between connectives and structure is introduced (this is in the direction of proof-theoretic semantics). Disadvantages: the space of logics cannot be reconstructed in a modular way (if the calculus is non-standard, ı.e. as usual for modal logics); it is not simple to obtain sequent calculi for substructural or modal logics (with the sub-formula property).
21 From global- to local-rules calculi Cut-elimination Common forms of the cut rule are the following: Γ C, Γ, C Γ,Γ, Γ C, Γ Γ, C Γ C Γ,Γ Γ, C Γ C, C Γ, Theorem (Cut-elimination) If Γ is derivable in calculus S with Cut, then it is in S without Cut. The cut-elimination is the most fundamental technique in proof theory and many important syntactic properties derive from it (e.g. decidability). A cut is an intermediate step in a deduction, by which a conclusion(s) can be proved from the assumption(s) Γ via the lemma C. Eliminating the cut from such a proof generates a new (and lemma-free) proof of, which exclusively employs syntactic material coming from Γ and (subformula property). Typically, syntactic proofs of cut-elimination are non-modular: if a new rule is added, cut-elimination must be proved from scratch. 10 / 43
22 From global- to local-rules calculi Cut-elimination Common forms of the cut rule are the following: Γ C, Γ, C Γ,Γ, Γ C, Γ Γ, C Γ C Γ,Γ Γ, C Γ C, C Γ, Theorem (Cut-elimination) If Γ is derivable in calculus S with Cut, then it is in S without Cut. The cut-elimination is the most fundamental technique in proof theory and many important syntactic properties derive from it (e.g. decidability). A cut is an intermediate step in a deduction, by which a conclusion(s) can be proved from the assumption(s) Γ via the lemma C. Eliminating the cut from such a proof generates a new (and lemma-free) proof of, which exclusively employs syntactic material coming from Γ and (subformula property). Typically, syntactic proofs of cut-elimination are non-modular: if a new rule is added, cut-elimination must be proved from scratch. 10 / 43
23 From global- to local-rules calculi Cut-elimination Common forms of the cut rule are the following: Γ C, Γ, C Γ,Γ, Γ C, Γ Γ, C Γ C Γ,Γ Γ, C Γ C, C Γ, Theorem (Cut-elimination) If Γ is derivable in calculus S with Cut, then it is in S without Cut. The cut-elimination is the most fundamental technique in proof theory and many important syntactic properties derive from it (e.g. decidability). A cut is an intermediate step in a deduction, by which a conclusion(s) can be proved from the assumption(s) Γ via the lemma C. Eliminating the cut from such a proof generates a new (and lemma-free) proof of, which exclusively employs syntactic material coming from Γ and (subformula property). Typically, syntactic proofs of cut-elimination are non-modular: if a new rule is added, cut-elimination must be proved from scratch. 10 / 43
24 From global- to local-rules calculi Cut-elimination Common forms of the cut rule are the following: Γ C, Γ, C Γ,Γ, Γ C, Γ Γ, C Γ C Γ,Γ Γ, C Γ C, C Γ, Theorem (Cut-elimination) If Γ is derivable in calculus S with Cut, then it is in S without Cut. The cut-elimination is the most fundamental technique in proof theory and many important syntactic properties derive from it (e.g. decidability). A cut is an intermediate step in a deduction, by which a conclusion(s) can be proved from the assumption(s) Γ via the lemma C. Eliminating the cut from such a proof generates a new (and lemma-free) proof of, which exclusively employs syntactic material coming from Γ and (subformula property). Typically, syntactic proofs of cut-elimination are non-modular: if a new rule is added, cut-elimination must be proved from scratch. 10 / 43
25 From holistic to modular calculi Display Calculi Display calculi were introduced by Belnap [2] to provide a uniform account for cut-elimination; a pure proof-theoretical analisys of logics; a tool useful to merge different logics. Display calculi generalize sequent calculi allowing: different structural connectives (not just the Gentzen s comma), where the structures in X Y are binary trees (not sequences); a set of structural rules named Display Postulates, that give the Display Property (essential in Belnap s cut-elimination). A A A;B A A B A A A B > A A B > B B A;B B A B B B A B > B A B > A B (A B > );(A B > ) ; > A B A B > > ; A B; A B A B; A B A B A B > A B A B A B ( A B) 11 / 43
26 From holistic to modular calculi Display Calculi Display calculi were introduced by Belnap [2] to provide a uniform account for cut-elimination; a pure proof-theoretical analisys of logics; a tool useful to merge different logics. Display calculi generalize sequent calculi allowing: different structural connectives (not just the Gentzen s comma), where the structures in X Y are binary trees (not sequences); a set of structural rules named Display Postulates, that give the Display Property (essential in Belnap s cut-elimination). A A A;B A A B A A A B > A A B > B B A;B B A B B B A B > B A B > A B (A B > );(A B > ) ; > A B A B > > ; A B; A B A B; A B A B A B > A B A B A B ( A B) 11 / 43
27 From holistic to modular calculi Display Calculi Display calculi were introduced by Belnap [2] to provide a uniform account for cut-elimination; a pure proof-theoretical analisys of logics; a tool useful to merge different logics. Display calculi generalize sequent calculi allowing: different structural connectives (not just the Gentzen s comma), where the structures in X Y are binary trees (not sequences); a set of structural rules named Display Postulates, that give the Display Property (essential in Belnap s cut-elimination). A A A;B A A B A A A B > A A B > B B A;B B A B B B A B > B A B > A B (A B > );(A B > ) ; > A B A B > > ; A B; A B A B; A B A B A B > A B A B A B ( A B) 11 / 43
28 From holistic to modular calculi Display Calculi 12 / 43 Advantages: cut-elimination is a consequence of design principles, by the following: Theorem (Cut-elimination [2] [5]) If a logic is properly displayable, then it enjoys cut-elimination space of logics can be reconstructed in a modular way, because: Došen Principle [5] The rules for the logical operations are never changed: all changes are made in the structural rules a real proof-theory is possible for substrucural and modal logics (e.g. separated, symmetrical and explicit introduction rules for the normal modal operators are available). Disadvantages: not amenable for proof-search (because of Display Postulates).
29 From holistic to modular calculi Display Calculi 12 / 43 Advantages: cut-elimination is a consequence of design principles, by the following: Theorem (Cut-elimination [2] [5]) If a logic is properly displayable, then it enjoys cut-elimination space of logics can be reconstructed in a modular way, because: Došen Principle [5] The rules for the logical operations are never changed: all changes are made in the structural rules a real proof-theory is possible for substrucural and modal logics (e.g. separated, symmetrical and explicit introduction rules for the normal modal operators are available). Disadvantages: not amenable for proof-search (because of Display Postulates).
30 From holistic to modular calculi Propositions- and Structures-Language 13 / 43 We consider the display calculus (plus explicit negations) introduced in [3] for the Baltag-Moss-Solecki logic of Epistemic Actions and Knowledge EAK [1]. For each agent a Ag and action α Act, Propositions are built from a set of atomic propositional variables AtProp = p, q, r,... and two constants and : p A A A A A A A> A A A A := a A a A a A a A [α]a α A α α[a A. Structures are built from formulas and one structural constant I: I A X; X X > X X X := a X a X αx α X. ]
31 From holistic to modular calculi Propositions- and Structures-Language 13 / 43 We consider the display calculus (plus explicit negations) introduced in [3] for the Baltag-Moss-Solecki logic of Epistemic Actions and Knowledge EAK [1]. For each agent a Ag and action α Act, Propositions are built from a set of atomic propositional variables AtProp = p, q, r,... and two constants and : p A A A A A A A> A A A A := a A a A a A a A [α]a α A α α[a A. Structures are built from formulas and one structural constant I: I A X; X X > X X X := a X a X αx α X. ]
32 From holistic to modular calculi Propositions- and Structures-Language 13 / 43 We consider the display calculus (plus explicit negations) introduced in [3] for the Baltag-Moss-Solecki logic of Epistemic Actions and Knowledge EAK [1]. For each agent a Ag and action α Act, Propositions are built from a set of atomic propositional variables AtProp = p, q, r,... and two constants and : p A A A A A A A> A A A A := a A a A a A a A [α]a α A α α[a A. Structures are built from formulas and one structural constant I: I A X; X X > X X X := a X a X αx α X. ]
33 14 / 43 From holistic to modular calculi Propositions- and Structures-Language The structural connectives are contextual (as the Gentzen s comma) and each of them is associated with a pair of logical connectives: Structural symb: I ; > Operational symb: > Structural symb: a a α by the translations τ 1 of precedent and τ 2 of succedent into prop. : τ 1 (A) := A τ 2 (A) := A τ 1 (I) := τ 2 (I) := τ 1 (X ; Y) := τ 1 (X) τ 1 (Y) τ 2 (X ; Y) := τ 2 (X) τ 2 (Y) τ 1 (X > Y) := τ 2 (X)> τ 1 (Y) τ 2 (X > Y) := τ 1 (X) τ 2 (Y) τ 1 ( X) := τ 2 (X) τ 2 ( X) := τ 1 (X) τ 1 ( a X) := a τ 1 (X) τ 2 ( a X) := a τ 2 (X) τ 1 ( a X) := a τ 1 (X) τ 2 ( a X) := a τ 2 (X) τ 1 (αx) := α τ 1 (X) τ 2 (αx) := α τ 2 (X) τ 1 ( α := α X) 1 (X)τ α[τ 2 (αx) := τ 2 (X) α Operational symb: a a a a α [α] α ] [α]
34 14 / 43 From holistic to modular calculi Propositions- and Structures-Language The structural connectives are contextual (as the Gentzen s comma) and each of them is associated with a pair of logical connectives: Structural symb: I ; > Operational symb: > Structural symb: a a α by the translations τ 1 of precedent and τ 2 of succedent into prop. : τ 1 (A) := A τ 2 (A) := A τ 1 (I) := τ 2 (I) := τ 1 (X ; Y) := τ 1 (X) τ 1 (Y) τ 2 (X ; Y) := τ 2 (X) τ 2 (Y) τ 1 (X > Y) := τ 2 (X)> τ 1 (Y) τ 2 (X > Y) := τ 1 (X) τ 2 (Y) τ 1 ( X) := τ 2 (X) τ 2 ( X) := τ 1 (X) τ 1 ( a X) := a τ 1 (X) τ 2 ( a X) := a τ 2 (X) τ 1 ( a X) := a τ 1 (X) τ 2 ( a X) := a τ 2 (X) τ 1 (αx) := α τ 1 (X) τ 2 (αx) := α τ 2 (X) τ 1 ( α := α X) 1 (X)τ α[τ 2 (αx) := τ 2 (X) α Operational symb: a a a a α [α] α ] [α]
35 From holistic to modular calculi Display Postulates and Display Property 15 / 43 ; > Display Postulates X ; Y Z Y X > Z Z Y ; X > ; Y > Z X a a a X Y X a Y X a Y a X Y a a α α αx Y X α Y X αy α X Y α α X Y Y X L R Y X X Y ; ; Z Y ; X Y ; Z X X ; Y Z ; ; Y X ; Z L X Y X Y Y X Y X R
36 From holistic to modular calculi Display Postulates and Display Property 15 / 43 ; > Display Postulates X ; Y Z Y X > Z Z Y ; X > ; Y > Z X a a a X Y X a Y X a Y a X Y a a α α αx Y X α Y X αy α X Y α α X Y Y X L R Y X X Y ; ; Z Y ; X Y ; Z X X ; Y Z ; ; Y X ; Z L X Y X Y Y X Y X R
37 From holistic to modular calculi Display Postulates and Display Property 16 / 43 By definition, structural connectives form adjoint pairs as follows: where ; > > ; a a a a means order-reversing adjoint (or Galois connection). Related notion: adjointness in category theory So, Display Postulates are about the connection between left and right side of the turnstile.
38 From holistic to modular calculi Display Postulates and Display Property 16 / 43 By definition, structural connectives form adjoint pairs as follows: where ; > > ; a a a a means order-reversing adjoint (or Galois connection). Related notion: adjointness in category theory So, Display Postulates are about the connection between left and right side of the turnstile.
39 From holistic to modular calculi Display Postulates and Display Property 17 / 43 The Display Postulates allow to disassembly and reassembly structures and provide the following: Theorem (Display Property [2] [5]) Each substructure in a display-sequent is isolable or displayable in precedent or, exclusively, succedent position. Note that in precedent (succedent) position and on the left (right) side of turnstile coincide in a Gentzen s sequent calculus, but not in a display calculus. E.g. In Y X > Z, X is on the right of the turnstile but it is precedent structure, in fact it is displayable in the precedent position: Y X > Z X ; Y Z Y ; X Z X Y > Z
40 From holistic to modular calculi Display Postulates and Display Property 17 / 43 The Display Postulates allow to disassembly and reassembly structures and provide the following: Theorem (Display Property [2] [5]) Each substructure in a display-sequent is isolable or displayable in precedent or, exclusively, succedent position. Note that in precedent (succedent) position and on the left (right) side of turnstile coincide in a Gentzen s sequent calculus, but not in a display calculus. E.g. In Y X > Z, X is on the right of the turnstile but it is precedent structure, in fact it is displayable in the precedent position: Y X > Z X ; Y Z Y ; X Z X Y > Z
41 Let be a, a. From holistic to modular calculi Structural Rules Structural Rules - entry/exit rules - Id p p X A A Y Cut X Y I L X Y X ; I Y Y X Y I;X I R W L X Z X ; Y Z Z Y Z Y ; X W R C L X ; X Y X Y Y X ; X Y X CR I X I X I I X I X I I I X X I X I I X I 18 / 43
42 From holistic to modular calculi Structural Rules 19 / 43 Let be, a, a,α, α. ; X ; Y Z (X ; Y) Z Z Y ; X Z (Y ; X) ; X > Y Z > (X > Y) Z Z Y > X Z (Y > X) > E L - manipulation rules - Y ; X Z Z X ; Y X ; Y Z Z Y ; X ER A L X ;(Y ; Z) W (X ; Y);Z W W (Z ; Y);X W Z ;(Y ; X) AR Grn L X > (Y ; Z) W (X > Y);Z W W X > (Y ; Z) W (X > Y);Z Grn R
43 From holistic to modular calculi Structural Rules 20 / 43 Related notion: naturality in category theory So, Structural Rules are about the left side or, esclusively, the right side of the turnstile. Note that the Excluded Middle is derivable by Grishin s rules as follows: A A A;I A A;I ;A I A > ( ;A) I (A > );A I A;(A > ) A > I A > A > I A A > I A I A; A I A A Grn
44 From holistic to modular calculi Structural Rules 20 / 43 Related notion: naturality in category theory So, Structural Rules are about the left side or, esclusively, the right side of the turnstile. Note that the Excluded Middle is derivable by Grishin s rules as follows: A A A;I A A;I ;A I A > ( ;A) I (A > );A I A;(A > ) A > I A > A > I A A > I A I A; A I A A Grn
45 From holistic to modular calculi Operational Rules 21 / 43 Operational Rules L - translation rules - X I I X R L I X X I R L A;B Z A B Z X A Y B R X ; Y A B L B Y A X B A Y ; X Z B; A Z B A R L X A B Y A B X > Y Z A > B Z A B R A > B Z > L A> B Z Y B A X > R X > Y A> B
46 22 / 43 From holistic to modular calculi Let be α a, a,α, α, a, a, α, α α, α a, a,[α], α[. ] Operational Rules αl α A X αa X X A α X αa αr αl A X α A α X X α A αr X α A L A X A X A X X A R X A L A X X A R X A Related notion: functoriality in category theory So, (one half of the) Operational Rules are about left and right side of the turnstile at the same time.
47 22 / 43 From holistic to modular calculi Let be α a, a,α, α, a, a, α, α α, α a, a,[α], α[. ] Operational Rules αl α A X αa X X A α X αa αr αl A X α A α X X α A αr X α A L A X A X A X X A R X A L A X X A R X A Related notion: functoriality in category theory So, (one half of the) Operational Rules are about left and right side of the turnstile at the same time.
48 From holistic to modular calculi No-standard Rules 23 / 43 In a context whit Pre(α), we allow the following no-standard rules. Contextual Operational Rules reverse L - translation rules - Pre(α);αA X X Pre(α) > αa reverser Pre(α);[α]A X X Pre(α) > α A
49 From holistic to modular calculi No-standard Rules 24 / 43 Contextual Structural Rules - entry/exit rules - X Y balance αx αy facts L α p X a facts R X a α p reduce L Pre(α);αA X αa X X Pre(α) > αa reducer X αa swap-in L - manipulation rules - Pre(α);α a X Y Y Pre(α) > α a X Pre(α); a β αaβ X Y Y Pre(α) > a β αaβ X swap-in R ( ) ( ) Pre(α); aβ X Y αaβ Y Pre(α) > a β X αaβ s-out L Pre(α);α ax ; ( Y αaβ) ; ( ) Y αaβ Pre(α) > α a X s-out R
50 Conclusions Counterexample in Kripke semantics 25 / 43 u p, r Let α = r, ϕ = p and ψ = q, so v q α[[[ p]] M = [[ ] q]] M however, [[ α p]] M = [[α]] M i[[[ p]] M α] = V(r) u = u v = [[q]] M which shows that α[[[ϕ]] M [[ ] ψ]] M [[ α ϕ]] M [[ψ]] M. M α[[[ p]] defined, so (α, M holds independently of the way in which [[ α[q]] q]] M is α ) is never sound for any interpretation of α X. ] ]
51 Conclusions Counterexample in Kripke semantics 25 / 43 u p, r Let α = r, ϕ = p and ψ = q, so v q α[[[ p]] M = [[ ] q]] M however, [[ α p]] M = [[α]] M i[[[ p]] M α] = V(r) u = u v = [[q]] M which shows that α[[[ϕ]] M [[ ] ψ]] M [[ α ϕ]] M [[ψ]] M. M α[[[ p]] defined, so (α, M holds independently of the way in which [[ α[q]] q]] M is α ) is never sound for any interpretation of α X. ] ]
52 Conclusions Counterexample in Kripke semantics 25 / 43 u p, r Let α = r, ϕ = p and ψ = q, so v q α[[[ p]] M = [[ ] q]] M however, [[ α p]] M = [[α]] M i[[[ p]] M α] = V(r) u = u v = [[q]] M which shows that α[[[ϕ]] M [[ ] ψ]] M [[ α ϕ]] M [[ψ]] M. M α[[[ p]] defined, so (α, M holds independently of the way in which [[ α[q]] q]] M is α ) is never sound for any interpretation of α X. ] ]
53 Conclusions Counterexample in Kripke semantics 25 / 43 u p, r Let α = r, ϕ = p and ψ = q, so v q α[[[ p]] M = [[ ] q]] M however, [[ α p]] M = [[α]] M i[[[ p]] M α] = V(r) u = u v = [[q]] M which shows that α[[[ϕ]] M [[ ] ψ]] M [[ α ϕ]] M [[ψ]] M. M α[[[ p]] defined, so (α, M holds independently of the way in which [[ α[q]] q]] M is α ) is never sound for any interpretation of α X. ] ]
54 Conclusions Counterexample in Kripke semantics 25 / 43 u p, r Let α = r, ϕ = p and ψ = q, so v q α[[[ p]] M = [[ ] q]] M however, [[ α p]] M = [[α]] M i[[[ p]] M α] = V(r) u = u v = [[q]] M which shows that α[[[ϕ]] M [[ ] ψ]] M [[ α ϕ]] M [[ψ]] M. M α[[[ p]] defined, so (α, M holds independently of the way in which [[ α[q]] q]] M is α ) is never sound for any interpretation of α X. ] ]
55 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra 26 / 43 Whereas the semantics of classical modal logic can be described equally w.r.t. models/frames/coalgebras and w.r.t. the final coalgebra, this is no longer the case in the presence of dynamic modalities. In particular, the dynamic modalities do not come in adjoint pairs if they are given a coalgebra instead of a final coalgebra semantics. In other words, Belnap s display postulates do not hold for dynamic modalities if considered w.r.t. to the standard semantics.
56 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra 26 / 43 Whereas the semantics of classical modal logic can be described equally w.r.t. models/frames/coalgebras and w.r.t. the final coalgebra, this is no longer the case in the presence of dynamic modalities. In particular, the dynamic modalities do not come in adjoint pairs if they are given a coalgebra instead of a final coalgebra semantics. In other words, Belnap s display postulates do not hold for dynamic modalities if considered w.r.t. to the standard semantics.
57 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra 26 / 43 Whereas the semantics of classical modal logic can be described equally w.r.t. models/frames/coalgebras and w.r.t. the final coalgebra, this is no longer the case in the presence of dynamic modalities. In particular, the dynamic modalities do not come in adjoint pairs if they are given a coalgebra instead of a final coalgebra semantics. In other words, Belnap s display postulates do not hold for dynamic modalities if considered w.r.t. to the standard semantics.
58 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra 27 / 43 The interpretation of dynamic modalities is given in terms of the actions parametrizing them. Actions are semantically represented as transformations of Kripke models, i.e., as relations between states of different Kripke models. From the viewpoint of the final coalgebra, we can then interpret action symbols α as binary relations α Z on the final coalgebra Z. Let us first recall a proposition showing how relations give rise to modal operators.
59 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra 27 / 43 The interpretation of dynamic modalities is given in terms of the actions parametrizing them. Actions are semantically represented as transformations of Kripke models, i.e., as relations between states of different Kripke models. From the viewpoint of the final coalgebra, we can then interpret action symbols α as binary relations α Z on the final coalgebra Z. Let us first recall a proposition showing how relations give rise to modal operators.
60 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra Every relation R X Y gives rise to the following modal operators R,[R] : PY PX and R,[R ] : PX PY defined, for every V X and every U Y, which come in adjoint pairs: R U = x X y. xry & y U (1) [R]U = x X y. xry y U (2) R V = y Y x. xry & x V (3) [R ]V = y Y x. xry x V (4) R U V iff U [R ]V (5) R V U iff V [R]U (6) R preserves the top-element iff R is total (since R = dom(r)); R preserves binary intersections iff R is single-valued. [R] preserves the empty set iff R is total; [R] preserves directed unions iff it is image-finite; [R] preserves non-empty unions iff it is single-valued. 28 / 43
61 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra Every relation R X Y gives rise to the following modal operators R,[R] : PY PX and R,[R ] : PX PY defined, for every V X and every U Y, which come in adjoint pairs: R U = x X y. xry & y U (1) [R]U = x X y. xry y U (2) R V = y Y x. xry & x V (3) [R ]V = y Y x. xry x V (4) R U V iff U [R ]V (5) R V U iff V [R]U (6) R preserves the top-element iff R is total (since R = dom(r)); R preserves binary intersections iff R is single-valued. [R] preserves the empty set iff R is total; [R] preserves directed unions iff it is image-finite; [R] preserves non-empty unions iff it is single-valued. 28 / 43
62 Conclusions Interpretation in final coalgebra 29 / 43 The operators α Z,[α Z ], α Z,[α Z ], respectively interpreting the modalities α,[α], α dynamic α[, in the final coalgebra Z, are the ones given by the proposition in the special case where X = Y is the carrier Z of Z. ]
63 References 30 / 43 [1] A. Baltag, L.S. Moss, S. Solecki, The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions, TARK, 43-56, 1998 [2] N. Belnap, Display logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11: , 1982 [3] G. Greco, A. Kurz, A. Palmigiano, Dynamic Epistemic Logic Displayed, Submitted, [4] R. Goré, L. Postniece, A. Tiu, Cut-elimination and Proof Search for Bi-Intuitionistic Tense Logic, Proc. Adv. in Modal Logic, , 2010 [5] H. Wansing, Displaying modal logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998
64 IEAK axiomatized 31 / 43 Interaction axioms Constants α =, α = α [α] =,[α] = α Disjunction α (φ ψ) = α φ α ψ [α](φ ψ) = α ( α φ α ψ) Implication α (φ ψ) = α ( α φ α ψ) [α](φ ψ) = α φ α ψ Diamond α A Pre(α) α j A kαj [α] A Pre(α) α j A kαj Box [α] A Pre(α) [α j ]A kαj α A Pre(α) [α j ]A kαj Preservation of facts α p = α p [α]p = α p Conjunction α (φ ψ) = α φ α ψ [α](φ ψ) = [α]φ [α]ψ
65 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete p p α p p α α α p;α p α α;α p p α α p p α p p p α p α;p α p p α > α p p α > α p α;p α p p α α p p p α p p α;α p p α;[α] p p [α] p α > p [α] p α p p p α α p α p α p α > α p α p [α] p α α I α ;I α α α α;α α α α I I α α;i α I α > α I α > α α;i α α α 32 / 43
66 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete I I;[α] [α] α α;α α;[α] [α] α > [α] α [α] α α [α] α α α α α > α α α > α α [α] 33 / 43
67 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete A A A;B A A B A [α](a B) αa [α](a B) [α]a B B A;B B A B B [α](a B) αb [α](a B) [α]b [α](a B);[α](A B) [α]a [α]b [α](a B) [α]a [α]b 34 / 43
68 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete 35 / 43 A A [α]a αa [α]a;[α]b αa [α]a [α]b αa α [α]a [α]b A B B [α]b αb [α]a;[α]b αb [α]a [α]b αb α [α]a [α]b B α [α]a [α]b; α [α]a [α]b A B α ([α]a [α]b;[α]a [α]b) A B [α]a [α]b;[α]a [α]b αa B [α]a [α]b αa B [α]a [α]b;[α]a [α]b αa B [α]a [α]b αa B [α]a [α]b [α](a B)
69 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete A A αa αa B B αb αb α αa A α αb B α αa; α αb A B A A A;B A A B A αa B α A α (A B) α A B B A;B B A B B αa B α B α (A B) α B α (A B); α (A B) α A α B α (A B) α A α B α (αa;αb) A B αa;αb αa B αa;αb Pre(α) > αa B αa;αb Pre(α) > α A B Pre(α);(αA;αB) α A B (Pre(α);αA);αB α A B Pre(α);αA α A B < αb αa α A B < αb α A α A B < αb α A;αB α A B αb α A > α A B α B α A > α A B α A; α B α A B α A α B α A B 36 / 43
70 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete A A αa α A B B αb α B αa B α A; α B α (A B) α A; α B α (A B) α A α B A A A A;B A A B αa α (A B) α A α (A B) B B B A;B B A B αb α (A B) α B α (A B) α A α B α (A B); α (A B) α A α B α (A B) A A αa α A B B αb α B αa B α A; α B αa B α A α B α;αa B α A α B α;[α](a B) α A α B [α](a B) α > α A α B [α](a B) α α A α B α α A A αa αa α A αa B B αb αb α B αb α A α B αa;αb α A α B α(a;b) α A α B αa B α α A α B α > αa B α α A α B [α](a B) 37 / 43
71 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete α α A A αa αa α A αa B B αb α B αa B α A > α B αa B α A α B α;αa B α ( α A α B) α (A B) α ( α A α B) A A αa α A B B αb αb α B αb α A α B αa > αb α A α B α(a > B) α A α B αa B α; α A α B αa B α A α B α > αa B α A α B α > α (A B) α; α A α B α (A B) α ( α A α B) α (A B) 38 / 43
72 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete A A αa αa B B αb α B αa B αa > α B α;αa B αa > α B α;[α](a B) αa > α B αa;(α;[α](a B)) α B (αa;α);[α](a B) α B [α](a B);(αA;α) α B αa;α [α](a B) > α B α;αa [α](a B) > α B [α](a B); α A α B α A;[α](A B) α B α A [α](a B) > α B [α](a B) α A > α B [α](a B) α A α B A A αa α A B B αb αb α B αb α A α B αa > αb α A α B α(a > B) α A α B αa B α A α B [α](a B) 39 / 43
73 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete 40 / 43 A A αa α A α α αa α A α; αa α α A α;α A α α A α A α > α α A α A α > α α A α;α A α α A α A α α A A A A A α A α A α;α A α A α; αa α A αa α > α A αa (α > α A) α A (α > α A) α A α > α A α A α > α A α; α A α A α α A α A
74 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete 41 / 43 A A αa α A αa α A α; αa α A α;α A α A α A α > α A α A α > α A α;α A α A α;[α] A α A [α] A α > α A [α] A α α A α α A A A A α A α A α;α A α A α; αa α A αa α > α A αa (α > α A) α A (α > α A) α A α > α A α A α > α A α α A α > (α > α A) α;α α A α > α A α;(α;α α A) α A (α;α);α α A α A α α A;(α;α) α A α;α α α A > α A α α A;α α A α;α α A α A α α α A > α A α α A α > α A α α A [α] A
75 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete A A A A [α] A α A [α] A α > α A [α] A α > αa α;[α] A αa (α;[α] A) αa (α;[α] A) [α]a α;[α] A [α]a α;[α] A [α]a [α] A α > [α]a [α] A α [α]a A A [α]a αa α α [α]a αa α [α]a α > αa α [α]a α > α A α;α [α]a α A α;α [α]a α A α [α]a α > α A α [α]a [α] A 42 / 43
76 IEAK axiomatized D.IEAK is complete α α A A A A α A α A α A α > α A α A α > αa α;α A αa (α;α A) αa (α;α A) [α]a α;α A [α]a α;α A [α]a α;(α;α A) α [α]a (α;α);α A α [α]a α A;(α;α) α [α]a α;α α A > α [α]a α α A > α [α]a α A;α α [α]a α;α A α [α]a α A α [α]a A A [α]a αa [α]a αa α; [α]a αa [α]a α > αa [α]a α > α A α; [α]a α A α (α; [α]a) A α; [α]a α A [α]a α > α A [α]a α > α A α; [α]a α A α [α]a α A 43 / 43
Display calculi in non-classical logics
Display calculi in non-classical logics Revantha Ramanayake Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien) Prague seminar of substructural logics March 28 29, 2014 Revantha Ramanayake (TU Wien) Display calculi
More informationProof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics
Proof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics Ryo Kashima Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences Tokyo Institute of Technology Ookayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan. e-mail: kashima@is.titech.ac.jp
More informationPropositional Logic Language
Propositional Logic Language A logic consists of: an alphabet A, a language L, i.e., a set of formulas, and a binary relation = between a set of formulas and a formula. An alphabet A consists of a finite
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.lo] 18 May 2018
Multi-type display calculus for Propositional Dynamic Logic arxiv:1805.09144v1 [math.lo] 18 May 2018 Sabine Frittella * Giuseppe Greco Alexander Kurz Alessandra Palmigiano Abstract We introduce a multi-type
More informationPropositional Dynamic Logic
Propositional Dynamic Logic Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Syntax and Semantics 2 2.1 Syntax................................. 2 2.2 Semantics............................... 2 3 Hilbert-style axiom system
More informationcse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018
cse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics CHAPTER 7 SLIDES Slides Set 1 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic III
An Introduction to Modal Logic III Soundness of Normal Modal Logics Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, October 24 th 2013 Marco Cerami
More informationApplied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw
Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018
More informationLogic of resources and capabilities
Logic of resources and capabilities Apostolos Tzimoulis joint work with Marta Bílková, Virginia Dignum, Giuseppe Greco and Alessandra Palmigiano Delft University of Technology Zürich - 10 February Logic
More information185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic
185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic www.volny.cz/behounek/logic/teaching/mathlog13 Libor Běhounek, behounek@cs.cas.cz Lecture #1, October 15, 2013 Organizational matters Study materials will be posted
More informationModal Logic XX. Yanjing Wang
Modal Logic XX Yanjing Wang Department of Philosophy, Peking University May 6th, 2016 Advanced Modal Logic (2016 Spring) 1 Completeness A traditional view of Logic A logic Λ is a collection of formulas
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationStructural extensions of display calculi: a general recipe
Structural extensions of display calculi: a general recipe Agata Ciabattoni and Revantha Ramanayake Vienna University of Technology {agata,revantha}@logic.at Abstract. We present a systematic procedure
More informationCHAPTER 11. Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic
CHAPTER 11 Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic Intuitionistic logic has developed as a result of certain philosophical views on the foundation of mathematics, known as intuitionism. Intuitionism was originated
More information02 Propositional Logic
SE 2F03 Fall 2005 02 Propositional Logic Instructor: W. M. Farmer Revised: 25 September 2005 1 What is Propositional Logic? Propositional logic is the study of the truth or falsehood of propositions or
More informationCHAPTER 10. Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic
CHAPTER 10 Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. By humans, not mentioning
More informationNonclassical logics (Nichtklassische Logiken)
Nonclassical logics (Nichtklassische Logiken) VU 185.249 (lecture + exercises) http://www.logic.at/lvas/ncl/ Chris Fermüller Technische Universität Wien www.logic.at/people/chrisf/ chrisf@logic.at Winter
More informationPřednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1
Přednáška 12 Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: A. a language B. a set of axioms C. a set of
More informationarxiv: v3 [math.lo] 24 Apr 2018
THE LOGIC OF RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES MARTA BÍLKOVÁ, GIUSEPPE GRECO, ALESSANDRA PALMIGIANO, APOSTOLOS TZIMOULIS, AND NACHOEM WIJNBERG arxiv:1608.02222v3 [math.lo] 24 Apr 2018 Abstract. We introduce the
More informationModal logics: an introduction
Modal logics: an introduction Valentin Goranko DTU Informatics October 2010 Outline Non-classical logics in AI. Variety of modal logics. Brief historical remarks. Basic generic modal logic: syntax and
More informationHypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models
Hypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models Agata Ciabattoni Mauro Ferrari Abstract In this paper we define cut-free hypersequent calculi for some intermediate logics semantically
More informationFROM AXIOMS TO STRUCTURAL RULES, THEN ADD QUANTIFIERS.
FROM AXIOMS TO STRUCTURAL RULES, THEN ADD QUANTIFIERS. REVANTHA RAMANAYAKE We survey recent developments in the program of generating proof calculi for large classes of axiomatic extensions of a non-classical
More informationAN ALTERNATIVE NATURAL DEDUCTION FOR THE INTUITIONISTIC PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 45/1 (2016), pp 33 51 http://dxdoiorg/1018778/0138-068045103 Mirjana Ilić 1 AN ALTERNATIVE NATURAL DEDUCTION FOR THE INTUITIONISTIC PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Abstract
More informationA CUT-FREE SIMPLE SEQUENT CALCULUS FOR MODAL LOGIC S5
THE REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC Volume 1, Number 1, June 2008 3 A CUT-FREE SIMPLE SEQUENT CALCULUS FOR MODAL LOGIC S5 FRANCESCA POGGIOLESI University of Florence and University of Paris 1 Abstract In this
More informationTR : Binding Modalities
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Computer Science Technical Reports Graduate Center 2012 TR-2012011: Binding Modalities Sergei N. Artemov Tatiana Yavorskaya (Sidon) Follow this and
More informationInducing syntactic cut-elimination for indexed nested sequents
Inducing syntactic cut-elimination for indexed nested sequents Revantha Ramanayake Technische Universität Wien (Austria) IJCAR 2016 June 28, 2016 Revantha Ramanayake (TU Wien) Inducing syntactic cut-elimination
More informationOn Axiomatic Rejection for the Description Logic ALC
On Axiomatic Rejection for the Description Logic ALC Hans Tompits Vienna University of Technology Institute of Information Systems Knowledge-Based Systems Group Joint work with Gerald Berger Context The
More informationTABLEAUX VARIANTS OF SOME MODAL AND RELEVANT SYSTEMS
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 17:3/4 (1988), pp. 92 98 reedition 2005 [original edition, pp. 92 103] P. Bystrov TBLEUX VRINTS OF SOME MODL ND RELEVNT SYSTEMS The tableaux-constructions have a
More informationNon-classical Logics: Theory, Applications and Tools
Non-classical Logics: Theory, Applications and Tools Agata Ciabattoni Vienna University of Technology (TUV) Joint work with (TUV): M. Baaz, P. Baldi, B. Lellmann, R. Ramanayake,... N. Galatos (US), G.
More informationThe Method of Socratic Proofs for Normal Modal Propositional Logics
Dorota Leszczyńska The Method of Socratic Proofs for Normal Modal Propositional Logics Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego w Zielonej Górze Rozprawa doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem prof.
More informationMarie Duží
Marie Duží marie.duzi@vsb.cz 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: 1. a language 2. a set of axioms 3. a set of deduction rules ad 1. The definition of a language
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - V
Propositional and Predicate Logic - V Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2016/2017 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - V WS 2016/2017 1 / 21 Formal proof systems Hilbert s calculus
More informationCut-elimination and Proof Search for Bi-Intuitionistic Tense Logic
Cut-elimination and Proof Search for Bi-Intuitionistic Tense Logic Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece and Alwen Tiu Logic and Computation Group, School of Computer Science The Australian National University
More informationGeneral methods in proof theory for modal logic - Lecture 1
General methods in proof theory for modal logic - Lecture 1 Björn Lellmann and Revantha Ramanayake TU Wien Tutorial co-located with TABLEAUX 2017, FroCoS 2017 and ITP 2017 September 24, 2017. Brasilia.
More informationOn Urquhart s C Logic
On Urquhart s C Logic Agata Ciabattoni Dipartimento di Informatica Via Comelico, 39 20135 Milano, Italy ciabatto@dsiunimiit Abstract In this paper we investigate the basic many-valued logics introduced
More informationNeighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5
Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5 Eric Pacuit ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit August 17, 2007 Eric Pacuit: Neighborhood Semantics, Lecture 5 1 Plan for the
More informationOutline. 1 Background and Aim. 2 Main results (in the paper) 3 More results (not in the paper) 4 Conclusion
Outline 1 Background and Aim 2 Main results (in the paper) 3 More results (not in the paper) 4 Conclusion De & Omori (Konstanz & Kyoto/JSPS) Classical and Empirical Negation in SJ AiML 2016, Sept. 2, 2016
More informationProper multi-type display calculi for classical and intuitionistic inquisitive logic
1/18 Proper multi-type display calculi for classical and intuitionistic inquisitive logic Giuseppe Greco Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands www.appliedlogictudelft.nl TACL 2017, Prague Joint
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction
Logic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction 1 Introduction In the previous lecture we have discussed some important notions about the semantics of propositional logic. 1. the truth value of a
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1)
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1) SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems
More informationDeep Sequent Systems for Modal Logic
Deep Sequent Systems for Modal Logic Kai Brünnler abstract. We see a systematic set of cut-free axiomatisations for all the basic normal modal logics formed from the axioms t, b,4, 5. They employ a form
More information3 Propositional Logic
3 Propositional Logic 3.1 Syntax 3.2 Semantics 3.3 Equivalence and Normal Forms 3.4 Proof Procedures 3.5 Properties Propositional Logic (25th October 2007) 1 3.1 Syntax Definition 3.0 An alphabet Σ consists
More informationOn Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic
On Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Vítězslav Švejdar Jan 29, 2005 The original publication is available at CMUC. Abstract The well-known Dyckoff s 1992 calculus/procedure for intuitionistic
More informationNotes on Inference and Deduction
Notes on Inference and Deduction Consider the following argument 1 Assumptions: If the races are fixed or the gambling houses are crooked, then the tourist trade will decline. If the tourist trade declines
More informationPositive Logic with Adjoint Modalities: Proof Theory, Semantics and Reasoning about Information
MFPS 2009 Positive Logic with Adjoint Modalities: Proof Theory, Semantics and Reasoning about Information Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh 1,2 Computer Laboratory, Oxford University, Oxford, England, UK Roy Dyckhoff
More informationOn the Correspondence between Display Postulates and Deep Inference in Nested Sequent Calculi for Tense Logics
On the Correspondence between Display Postulates and Deep Inference in Nested Sequent Calculi for Tense Logics Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece, and Alwen Tiu Logic and Computation Group College of Engineering
More informationProof systems for Moss coalgebraic logic
Proof systems for Moss coalgebraic logic Marta Bílková, Alessandra Palmigiano, Yde Venema March 30, 2014 Abstract We study Gentzen-style proof theory of the finitary version of the coalgebraic logic introduced
More informationChapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems. September 19, 2008
Chapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems September 19, 2008 Outline 1 3.1 Deductive (Proof) System 2 3.2 Gentzen System G 3 3.3 Hilbert System H 4 3.4 Soundness and Completeness; Consistency
More informationIntuitionistic Hybrid Logic
Intuitionistic Hybrid Logic Torben Braüner a,1 Valeria de Paiva b,2 a Department of omputer Science Roskilde University P.O. Box 260 DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark torben@ruc.dk b PAR 3333 oyote Hill Road Palo
More informationPropositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0
Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0 Outline Syntax of Propositional Formulas Motivating Proofs Syntactic Entailment and Proofs Proof Rules for Natural Deduction Axioms, theories and theorems
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic V
An Introduction to Modal Logic V Axiomatic Extensions and Classes of Frames Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, November 7 th 2013
More informationPropositional Calculus - Natural deduction Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST
Propositional Calculus - Natural deduction Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula Á is valid To prove a given formula Á ` Á Syntactic
More informationCS 512, Spring 2016, Handout 02 Natural Deduction, and Examples of Natural Deduction, in Propositional Logic
CS 512, Spring 2016, Handout 02 Natural Deduction, and Examples of Natural Deduction, in Propositional Logic Assaf Kfoury January 19, 2017 Assaf Kfoury, CS 512, Spring 2017, Handout 02 page 1 of 41 from
More informationSyntax. Notation Throughout, and when not otherwise said, we assume a vocabulary V = C F P.
First-Order Logic Syntax The alphabet of a first-order language is organised into the following categories. Logical connectives:,,,,, and. Auxiliary symbols:.,,, ( and ). Variables: we assume a countable
More informationPropositional Logic: Deductive Proof & Natural Deduction Part 1
Propositional Logic: Deductive Proof & Natural Deduction Part 1 CS402, Spring 2016 Shin Yoo Deductive Proof In propositional logic, a valid formula is a tautology. So far, we could show the validity of
More informationAn Algebraic Proof of the Disjunction Property
An Algebraic Proof of the Disjunction Property Rostislav Horčík joint work with Kazushige Terui Institute of Computer Science Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Algebra & Coalgebra meet Proof Theory
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Propositional logic
Artificial Intelligence Propositional logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Syntax of propositional logic defines allowable sentences Atomic sentences consists of a single proposition symbol Each symbol stands
More informationOn the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs
On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs Nikolai V. Krupski Department of Math. Logic and the Theory of Algorithms, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899,
More informationProof Theoretical Reasoning Lecture 3 Modal Logic S5 and Hypersequents
Proof Theoretical Reasoning Lecture 3 Modal Logic S5 and Hypersequents Revantha Ramanayake and Björn Lellmann TU Wien TRS Reasoning School 2015 Natal, Brasil Outline Modal Logic S5 Sequents for S5 Hypersequents
More informationJustification logic for constructive modal logic
Justification logic for constructive modal logic Sonia Marin With Roman Kuznets and Lutz Straßburger Inria, LIX, École Polytechnique IMLA 17 July 17, 2017 The big picture The big picture Justification
More informationRasiowa-Sikorski proof system for the non-fregean sentential logic SCI
Rasiowa-Sikorski proof system for the non-fregean sentential logic SCI Joanna Golińska-Pilarek National Institute of Telecommunications, Warsaw, J.Golinska-Pilarek@itl.waw.pl We will present complete and
More informationNatural Deduction. Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson
Natural Deduction Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson Outline 1. An example 1. Validity by truth table 2. Validity by proof 2. What s a proof 1. Proof checker 3. Rules of
More informationTowards A Multi-Agent Subset Space Logic
Towards A Multi-Agent Subset Space Logic A Constructive Approach with Applications Department of Computer Science The Graduate Center of the City University of New York cbaskent@gc.cuny.edu www.canbaskent.net
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems are
More informationSemantical study of intuitionistic modal logics
Semantical study of intuitionistic modal logics Department of Intelligence Science and Technology Graduate School of Informatics Kyoto University Kensuke KOJIMA January 16, 2012 Abstract We investigate
More informationTopos Theory. Lectures 17-20: The interpretation of logic in categories. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello.
logic s Lectures 17-20: logic in 2 / 40 logic s Interpreting first-order logic in In Logic, first-order s are a wide class of formal s used for talking about structures of any kind (where the restriction
More informationSubtractive Logic. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science. Tristan Crolard May 3, 1999
Subtractive Logic To appear in Theoretical Computer Science Tristan Crolard crolard@ufr-info-p7.jussieu.fr May 3, 1999 Abstract This paper is the first part of a work whose purpose is to investigate duality
More informationAutomated Support for the Investigation of Paraconsistent and Other Logics
Automated Support for the Investigation of Paraconsistent and Other Logics Agata Ciabattoni 1, Ori Lahav 2, Lara Spendier 1, and Anna Zamansky 1 1 Vienna University of Technology 2 Tel Aviv University
More informationPropositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34
Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment p. 1/34 Reading The background reading for propositional logic is Chapter 1 of Huth/Ryan. (This will cover approximately the first three lectures.)
More informationCut-elimination and Proof-search for Bi- Intuitionistic Logic Using Nested Sequents
Cut-elimination and Proof-search for Bi- Intuitionistic Logic Using Nested Sequents Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece, Alwen Tiu abstract. We propose a new sequent calculus for bi-intuitionistic logic which
More informationSequent calculi of quantum logic with strict implication
CTFM 2015 9/7 Sequent calculi of quantum logic with strict implication Tokyo Institute of Technology Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering Tomoaki Kawano About quantum logic Sequent calculi
More informationA refined calculus for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic
A refined calculus for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Mauro Ferrari 1, Camillo Fiorentini 2, Guido Fiorino 3 1 Dipartimento di Informatica e Comunicazione, Università degli Studi dell Insubria Via
More informationOutline. Overview. Syntax Semantics. Introduction Hilbert Calculus Natural Deduction. 1 Introduction. 2 Language: Syntax and Semantics
Introduction Arnd Poetzsch-Heffter Software Technology Group Fachbereich Informatik Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Sommersemester 2010 Arnd Poetzsch-Heffter ( Software Technology Group Fachbereich
More informationNested Sequent Calculi for Normal Conditional Logics
Nested Sequent Calculi for Normal Conditional Logics Régis Alenda 1 Nicola Olivetti 2 Gian Luca Pozzato 3 1 Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, LSIS UMR 7296, 13397, Marseille, France. regis.alenda@univ-amu.fr
More informationProof Theory and Proof Search of Bi-Intuitionistic and Tense Logic Linda Postniece
Proof Theory and Proof Search of Bi-Intuitionistic and Tense Logic Linda Postniece A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The Australian National University November 2010 c Linda
More informationAdvanced Topics in LP and FP
Lecture 1: Prolog and Summary of this lecture 1 Introduction to Prolog 2 3 Truth value evaluation 4 Prolog Logic programming language Introduction to Prolog Introduced in the 1970s Program = collection
More informationClassical Propositional Logic
The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction January 16, 2013 The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction Logic Logic is the science of inference. Given a body of information,
More informationFrom Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics
From Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics Ori Lahav School of Computer Science Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel Email: orilahav@post.tau.ac.il Abstract We provide a general method
More information15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic
15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic Qinsi Wang Logic is the study of information encoded in the form of logical sentences. We use the language of Logic to state observations, to define concepts,
More informationMadhavan Mukund Chennai Mathematical Institute
AN INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Madhavan Mukund Chennai Mathematical Institute E-mail: madhavan@cmiacin Abstract ese are lecture notes for an introductory course on logic aimed at graduate students in Computer
More informationFundamentals of Logic
Fundamentals of Logic No.5 Soundness and Completeness Tatsuya Hagino Faculty of Environment and Information Studies Keio University 2015/5/18 Tatsuya Hagino (Faculty of Environment and InformationFundamentals
More informationLogic Part II: Intuitionistic Logic and Natural Deduction
Yesterday Remember yesterday? classical logic: reasoning about truth of formulas propositional logic: atomic sentences, composed by connectives validity and satisability can be decided by truth tables
More informationLecture Notes on Linear Logic
Lecture Notes on Linear Logic 15-816: Modal Logic Frank Pfenning Lecture 23 April 20, 2010 1 Introduction In this lecture we will introduce linear logic [?] in its judgmental formulation [?,?]. Linear
More informationPropositions and Proofs
Chapter 2 Propositions and Proofs The goal of this chapter is to develop the two principal notions of logic, namely propositions and proofs There is no universal agreement about the proper foundations
More informationComputational Logic. Davide Martinenghi. Spring Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. Computational Logic Davide Martinenghi (1/30)
Computational Logic Davide Martinenghi Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Spring 2010 Computational Logic Davide Martinenghi (1/30) Propositional Logic - sequent calculus To overcome the problems of natural
More informationUniform Schemata for Proof Rules
Uniform Schemata for Proof Rules Ulrich Berger and Tie Hou Department of omputer Science, Swansea University, UK {u.berger,cshou}@swansea.ac.uk Abstract. Motivated by the desire to facilitate the implementation
More informationExercises 1 - Solutions
Exercises 1 - Solutions SAV 2013 1 PL validity For each of the following propositional logic formulae determine whether it is valid or not. If it is valid prove it, otherwise give a counterexample. Note
More informationAbstract In this paper, we introduce the logic of a control action S4F and the logic of a continuous control action S4C on the state space of a dynami
Modal Logics and Topological Semantics for Hybrid Systems Mathematical Sciences Institute Technical Report 97-05 S. N. Artemov, J. M. Davoren y and A. Nerode z Mathematical Sciences Institute Cornell University
More informationLabel-free Modular Systems for Classical and Intuitionistic Modal Logics
Label-free Modular Systems for Classical and Intuitionistic Modal Logics Sonia Marin ENS, Paris, France Lutz Straßburger Inria, Palaiseau, France Abstract In this paper we show for each of the modal axioms
More informationLinear Nested Sequents, 2-Sequents and Hypersequents
Linear Nested Sequents, 2-Sequents and Hypersequents Björn Lellmann TU Wien TABLEAUX 2015 Wroc law, Sep 22, 2015 Sequent systems and modal logics Sequent calculi for modal logics are well-established and
More information5-valued Non-deterministic Semantics for The Basic Paraconsistent Logic mci
5-valued Non-deterministic Semantics for The Basic Paraconsistent Logic mci Arnon Avron School of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv University http://www.math.tau.ac.il/ aa/ March 7, 2008 Abstract One of the
More informationarxiv: v2 [cs.lo] 29 Jun 2010
arxiv:1006.4793v2 [cs.lo] 29 Jun 2010 Abstract Cut-elimination and Proof Search for Bi-Intuitionistic Tense Logic Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece and Alwen Tiu Logic and Computation Group, School of Computer
More informationOn sequent calculi vs natural deductions in logic and computer science
On sequent calculi vs natural deductions in logic and computer science L. Gordeev Uni-Tübingen, Uni-Ghent, PUC-Rio PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, October 13, 2015 1. Sequent calculus (SC): Basics -1- 1. Sequent
More informationHarvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences CS 152: Programming Languages
Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences CS 152: Programming Languages Lecture 17 Tuesday, April 2, 2013 1 There is a strong connection between types in programming languages and propositions
More informationLogic: Propositional Logic (Part I)
Logic: Propositional Logic (Part I) Alessandro Artale Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science http://www.inf.unibz.it/ artale Descrete Mathematics and Logic BSc course Thanks to Prof.
More informationNabla Algebras and Chu Spaces
Nabla Algebras and Chu Spaces Alessandra Palmigiano and Yde Venema Universiteit van Amsterdam, ILLC Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam, Netherlands Abstract. This paper is a study into some properties
More informationNeighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 3
Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 3 Eric Pacuit ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit August 15, 2007 Eric Pacuit: Neighborhood Semantics, Lecture 3 1 Plan for the
More informationBasic Algebraic Logic
ELTE 2013. September Today Past 1 Universal Algebra 1 Algebra 2 Transforming Algebras... Past 1 Homomorphism 2 Subalgebras 3 Direct products 3 Varieties 1 Algebraic Model Theory 1 Term Algebras 2 Meanings
More informationThe Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. February 5, Propositional Logic
The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz February 5, 2014 Propositional Logic 1 Motivation In traditional logic, terms represent sets, and therefore, propositions are limited to stating facts on sets
More informationEquivalents of Mingle and Positive Paradox
Eric Schechter Equivalents of Mingle and Positive Paradox Abstract. Relevant logic is a proper subset of classical logic. It does not include among itstheoremsanyof positive paradox A (B A) mingle A (A
More information