A natural extension of Natural Deduction was defined by Schroder-Heister where not only formulas but also rules could be used as hypotheses and hence discharged. It was shown that this extension allows the definition of higher-level introduction and elimination schemes and that the set $\{ \vee, \wedge, \rightarrow, \bot \}$ of intuitionist sentential operators forms a {\it complete} set of operators modulo the higher level introduction and elimination schemes, i.e., that any operator whose introduction (...) and elimination rules are instances of the higher-level schemes can be defined in terms of $\{ \vee, \wedge, \rightarrow, \bot \}$.The aim of the present work is to extend the well-known connections between Proof Theory and Category Theory to higher-level Natural Deduction. To be precise, we will show how an adjointness between cartesian closed categories with finite coproducts can be associated, in a systematic way, with any operator $\phi$ defined by the higher-level schemes. The objects in the categories will be rules instead of formulas. (shrink)

This paper argues that Lemmon-style proof systems (those that consist of only introduction and elimination inference rules) have several pedagogical benefits over Copi-style systems (those that make use of inference rules and equivalence rules). It is argued that Lemmon-style systems are easier to learn as they do not require memorizing as many rules, they do not require learning the subtle distinction between a rule of inference and a rule of replacement, and deriving material conditionals (...) is more straightforward. Finally, it is argued that the need for learning provisional assumptions in Lemmon-style rules is not a significant enough reason for choosing the Copi-style system. (shrink)

This paper studies a formalisation of intuitionistic logic by Negri and von Plato which has general introduction and elimination rules. The philosophical importance of the system is expounded. Definitions of ‘maximal formula’, ‘segment’ and ‘maximal segment’ suitable to the system are formulated and corresponding reduction procedures for maximal formulas and permutative reduction procedures for maximal segments given. Alternatives to the main method used are also considered. It is shown that deductions in the system convert into normal form (...) and that deductions in normal form have the subformula property. (shrink)

In proof-theoretic semantics the meaning of an atomic sentence is usually determined by a set of derivations in an atomic system which contain that sentence as a conclusion (see, in particular, Prawitz, 1971, 1973). The paper critically discusses this standard approach and suggests an alternative account which proceeds in terms of subatomic introduction and elimination rules for atomic sentences. A simple subatomic normal form theorem by which this account of the semantics of atomic sentences and the terms (...) from which they are composed is underpinned, shows moreover that the proof-theoretic analysis of first-order logic can be pursued also beneath the atomic level. (shrink)

Natural deduction with alternatives extends Gentzen–Prawitz-style natural deduction with a single structural addition: negatively signed assumptions, called alternatives. It is a mildly bilateralist, single-conclusion natural deduction proof system in which the connective rules are unmodi_ed from the usual Prawitz introduction and elimination rules — the extension is purely structural. This framework is general: it can be used for (1) classical logic, (2) relevant logic without distribution, (3) affine logic, and (4) linear logic, keeping the connective (...) class='Hi'>rules fixed, and varying purely structural rules. The key result of this paper is that the two principles that introduce kinds of irrelevance to natural deduction proofs: (a) the rule of explosion (from a contradiction, anything follows); and (b) the structural rule of vacuous discharge; are shown to be two sides of a single coin, in the same way that they correspond to the structural rule of weakening in the sequent calculus. The paper also includes a discussion of assumption classes, and how they can play a role in treating additive connectives in substructural natural deduction. (shrink)

We investigate introduction and elimination rules for truth-functional connectives, focusing on the general questions of the existence, for a given connective, of at least one such rule that it satisfies, and the uniqueness of a connective with respect to the set of all of them. The answers are straightforward in the context of rules using general set/set sequents of formulae, but rather complex and asymmetric in the restricted (but more often used) context of set/formula sequents, as (...) also in the intermediate set/formula-or-empty context. (shrink)

We investigate introduction and elimination rules for truth-functional connectives, focusing on the general questions of the existence, for a given connective, of at least one such rule that it satisfies, and the uniqueness of a connective with respect to the set of all of them. The answers are straightforward in the context of rules using general set/set sequents of formulae, but rather complex and asymmetric in the restricted (but more often used) context of set/formula sequents, as (...) also in the intermediate set/formula-or-empty context. (shrink)

General-elimination harmony articulates Gentzen’s idea that the elimination-rules are justified if they infer from an assertion no more than can already be inferred from the grounds for making it. Dummett described the rules as not only harmonious but stable if the E-rules allow one to infer no more and no less than the I-rules justify. Pfenning and Davies call the rules locally complete if the E-rules are strong enough to allow one to (...) infer the original judgement. A method is given of generating harmonious general-elimination rules from a collection of I-rules. We show that the general-elimination rules satisfy Pfenning and Davies’ test for local completeness, but question whether that is enough to show that they are stable. Alternative conditions for stability are considered, including equivalence between the introduction- and elimination-meanings of a connective, and recovery of the grounds for assertion, finally generalizing the notion of local completeness to capture Dummett’s notion of stability satisfactorily. We show that the general-elimination rules meet the last of these conditions, and so are indeed not only harmonious but also stable. (shrink)

A system of natural deduction rules is proposed for an idealized form of English. The rules presuppose a sharp distinction between proper names and such expressions as the c, a (an) c, some c, any c, and every c, where c represents a common noun. These latter expressions are called quantifiers, and other expressions of the form that c or that c itself, are called quantified terms. Introduction and elimination rules are presented for any, every, (...) some, a (an), and the, and also for any which, every which, and so on, as well as rules for some other concepts. One outcome of these rules is that Every man loves some woman is implied by, but does not imply, Some woman is loved by every man, since the latter is taken to mean the same as Some woman is loved by all men. Also, Jack knows which woman came is implied by Some woman is known by Jack to have come, but not by Jack knows that some woman came. (shrink)

As far as logic is concerned, the conclusion of Michael Dummett's manifestability argument is that intuitionistic logic, as first developed by Heyting, satisfies the semantic requirements of antirealism. The argument may be roughly sketched as follows: since we cannot manifest a grasp of possibly justification-transcendent truth conditions, we must countenance conditions which are such that, at least in principle and by the very nature of the case, we are able to recognize that they are satisfied whenever they are. Intuitionistic logic (...) satisfies the semantic requirement that we should either eschew the notion of truth altogether and replace it by provability in principle, or constrain it by provability in principle (Dummett [1973] 1978). (Handout: 1-5). Some philosophers have argued that the traditional antirealist desideratum of decidability in principle is too weak, so that semantic antirealism properly construed must be committed to effective decidability. As such, it either leads to strict finitism (Wright [1982] 1993) [Handout: 6] or to a much stronger kind of logical revisionism than the one considered by intuitionists (whether or not they accept the manifestability argument): substructural logics, and in particular linear logics, rather than intuitionistic logic, satisfy the semantic requirements of strict antirealism (Dubucs and Marion 2004) [Handout: 8-9]. I shall develop two different kinds of replies. The first is concerned with the notion of meaning per se and looks to strict finitism directly, although not on the ground that it would provide a correct way of dealing with Soritic-type paradoxes (the original and primary focus of discussion in Wright [1982] 1993). The second is concerned with the justification of structural and logical rules in a natural deduction system à la Gentzen. It will deal in particular with the criticism of the structural rules of Weakening and Contraction [Handout: 10 and 11]. The first kind of reply, which Dummett has partially taken into consideration, is that if we jettison the effectively vs. in principle distinction, as applied to manifestability-type arguments, we end up with an unsatisfactory explanation of how the meaning of statements covering the practically unsurveyable or pro tempora undecided cases is fixed. The idea is that if we have a method which may be used over some small range, we have determined a way of applying the method everywhere in principle and that this is enough as far as fixing meaning is concerned. Decidability in principle is just what we need with respect to manifestation of grasp of meaning. In this perspective, antirealism shouldn't be strict and manifestability-type arguments need not be applied as far as the strict finitist would want to [Handout: 7]. It follows that there is no reason to think that practical feasibility should be built in assertibility conditions and proofs be construed dynamically as acts in the strict antirealist's acception of that term [Handout: 8]. I shall then look at one radical antirealist principle disqualifying structural rules, namely Token Preservation, arguing against Bonnay and Cozic's criticisms of Dubucs and Marion (Bonnay and Cozic 3 2007) that some conceptual support may be provided for Token Preservation, which doesn't rely on a causal misreading of the turnstile [Handout: 13, 14]. I shall then assess the merits and limits of radical antirealism and the logic of feasible proofs with respect to the original Dummettian argument in favour of semantic antirealism (provided it has indeed revisionist implications for logic), whether the radical antirealist merely stipulates what human feasibility amounts to, or dispenses with structural rules in order to argue in favour of a curb on the epistemic idealizations they unwarrantedly embed. It will be noted here that there is a great difference, conceptually speaking, between the rejection of classical logic via the curbing of the epistemic idealizations embedded in structural rules, and the rejection of classical logic via the criticism of the introduction and elimination rules which fix the meaning of the classical constants. The kind of logical revisionism envisaged by intuitionists from Heyting on is in many respects stronger than the one envisaged by advocates of linear logic, should they ground their arguments on an endorsement of strict antirealism. The crucial case of excluded middle is telling. Because of the splitting of the constants in linear logic (Handout: 12], two distinct laws of excluded middle may be formulated (Handout: 15), but the traditional arguments of Brouwer and Heyting against the classical law yield a stronger revision than the substructural revision with its admission of these two (very) weak versions of the law. (Project: a clearer conception is needed of how the introduction and elimination rules for the logical connectives in the intuitionistic calculus depend on the structural rules which the radical antirealist wishes to reject.). (shrink)

We give a proof-theoretic as well as a semantic characterization of a logic in the signature with conjunction, disjunction, negation, and the universal and existential quantifiers that we suggest has a certain fundamental status. We present a Fitch-style natural deduction system for the logic that contains only the introduction and elimination rules for the logical constants. From this starting point, if one adds the rule that Fitch called Reiteration, one obtains a proof system for intuitionistic logic in (...) the given signature; if instead of adding Reiteration, one adds the rule of Reductio ad Absurdum, one obtains a proof system for orthologic; by adding both Reiteration and Reductio, one obtains a proof system for classical logic. Arguably neither Reiteration nor Reductio is as intimately related to the meaning of the connectives as the introduction and elimination rules are, so the base logic we identify serves as a more fundamental starting point and common ground between proponents of intuitionistic logic, orthologic, and classical logic. The algebraic semantics for the logic we motivate proof-theoretically is based on bounded lattices equipped with what has been called a weak pseudocomplementation. We show that such lattice expansions are representable using a set together with a reflexive binary relation satisfying a simple first-order condition, which yields an elegant relational semantics for the logic. This builds on our previous study of representations of lattices with negations, which we extend and specialize for several types of negation in addition to weak pseudocomplementation; in an appendix, we further extend this representation to lattices with implications. Finally, we discuss adding to our logic a conditional obeying only introduction and elimination rules, interpreted as a modality using a family of accessibility relations. (shrink)

In the proof-theoretic semantics approach to meaning, harmony , requiring a balance between introduction-rules (I-rules) and elimination rules (E-rules) within a meaning conferring natural-deduction proof-system, is a central notion. In this paper, we consider two notions of harmony that were proposed in the literature: 1. GE-harmony , requiring a certain form of the E-rules, given the form of the I-rules. 2. Local intrinsic harmony : imposes the existence of certain transformations of derivations, (...) known as reduction and expansion . We propose a construction of the E-rules (in GE-form) from given I-rules, and prove that the constructed rules satisfy also local intrinsic harmony. The construction is based on a classification of I-rules, and constitute an implementation to Gentzen’s (and Pawitz’) remark, that E-rules can be “read off” I-rules. (shrink)

In this introduction to part 3 of the Common Knowledge symposium “Antipolitics,” the journal's editor argues that, apart from sortition, the best guarantees of safety in a democracy are, first, to augment judicial oversight of all political processes and, second, to exclude politicians from the process of selecting judges. “There can never be too much judicial interference,” he writes, “in what politicians regard as their domain.” The author reached this conclusion during attempts by the newly elected Israeli government, in (...) the spring of 2023, to make itself absolute by eliminating checks on its conduct that the Supreme Court had been developing and applying since the 1950s. Traditional Jewry and Judaism being notoriously hypernomian, the resistance to legality on the part of the ruling coalition has conveyed an aura of antinomian heresy. The choice in Israel appears to be between antipolitics and antinomianism, rather than between Left and Right politically—and the antipolitical model in Israel of a superintendent judiciary and an autonomous attorney general is arguably superior to the American prototype, even from the perspective (“all men are created equal..., endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”) that we have come to regard as quintessentially American. (shrink)

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.Through the condition that in a cut-free derivation of the (...) sequent Γ⇒C, no inactive weakening or contraction formulas remain in Γ, a correspondence with the formal derivability relation of natural deduction is obtained: All formulas of Γ become open assumptions in natural deduction, through an inductively defined translation. Weakenings are interpreted as vacuous discharges, and contractions as multiple discharges. In the other direction, non-normal derivations translate into derivations with cuts having the cut formula principal either in both premisses or in the right premiss only. (shrink)

The interpretation of implications as rules motivates a different left-introduction schema for implication in the sequent calculus, which is conceptually more basic than the implication-left schema proposed by Gentzen. Corresponding to results obtained for systems with higher-level rules, it enjoys the subformula property and cut elimination in a weak form.

The first system of intersection types, Coppo and Dezani [3], extended simple types to include intersections and added intersection introduction and elimination rules (( $\wedge$ I) and ( $\wedge$ E)) to the type assignment system. The major advantage of these new types was that they were invariant under β-equality, later work by Barendregt, Coppo and Dezani [1], extended this to include an (η) rule which gave types invariant under βη-reduction. Urzyczyn proved in [6] that for both these (...) systems it is undecidable whether a given intersection type is empty. Kurata and Takahashi however have shown in [5] that this emptiness problem is decidable for the sytem including (η), but without ( $\wedge$ I). The aim of this paper is to classify intersection type systems lacking some of ( $\wedge$ I), ( $\wedge$ E) and (η), into equivalence classes according to their strength in typing λ-terms and also according to their strength in possessing inhabitants. This classification is used in a later paper to extend the above (un)decidability results to two of the five inhabitation-equivalence classes. This later paper also shows that the systems in two more of these classes have decidable inhabitation problems and develops algorithms to find such inhabitants. (shrink)

The paper introduces NJ g, a variant of Gentzen’s NJ natural deduction system, in which the implication elimination rule has no minor premise. The NJ g -systems extends traditional ND-system with a new kind of action in derivations, assumption incorporation, a kind of dual to the assumption discharge action. As a result, the implication (I/E)-rules are invertible and, almost by definition, harmonious and stable, a major condition imposed by proof-theoretic semantics on ND-systems to qualify as meaning-conferring. There is (...) also a proof-term assignment to NJ g -derivations, materialising the Curry-Howard correspondence for this system. (shrink)

In this paper we present a finitary sequent calculus for the S5 multi-modal system with common knowledge. The sequent calculus is based on indexed hypersequents which are standard hypersequents refined with indices that serve to show the multi-agent feature of the system S5. The calculus has a non-analytic right introduction rule. We prove that the calculus is contraction- and weakening-free, that (almost all) its logical rules are invertible, and finally that it enjoys a syntactic cut-elimination procedure. Moreover, (...) the use of the non-analytic rule can be restricted so that the calculus can be considered as suitable for proof search. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

The introduction and elimination rules for material implication in natural deduction are not complete with respect to the implicational fragment of classical logic. A natural way to complete the system is through the addition of a new natural deduction rule corresponding to Peirce's formula → A) → A). E. Zimmermann [6] has shown how to extend Prawitz' normalization strategy to Peirce's rule: applications of Peirce's rule can be restricted to atomic conclusions. The aim of the present paper (...) is to extend Seldin's normalization strategy to Peirce's rule by showing that every derivation Π in the implicational fragment can be transformed into a derivation Π' such that no application of Peirce's rule in Π' occurs above applications of →-introduction and →-elimination. As a corollary of Seldin's normalization strategy we obtain a form of Glivenko's theorem for the classical {→}-fragment. (shrink)

El objeto principal de este trabajo consiste en discutir una propuesta de C. Alchourrón y A. Martino para hacer frente al problema de la fundamentación de la lógica deóntica, planteado por el dilema de Jørgensen. La propuesta criticada se basa en la idea de que no existe obstáculo alguno en compatibilizar la idea de que las normas carecen de valor de verdad con la idea de que poseen una lógica, una vez que se renuncia al "prejuicio filosófico" de que es (...) indispensable caracterizar semánticamente las relaciones y propiedades lógicas y se explica la lógica a partir de la noción abstracta de consecuencia, desligándola de las nociones de verdad y falsedad. Sostienen que el significado de los operadores deónticos, al igual que el de los términos lógicos en la deducción natural, puede quedar totalmente expresado una vez que se explicita su uso mediante reglas de introducción y eliminación. Para ilustrar su propuesta, pretenden ofrecer una fundamentación puramente sintáctica de la lógica deóntica standard. Mis críticas se centran en tres puntos: a) no utilizan auténticas reglas de introducción para los operadores deónticos; b) no derivan la lógica deóntica standard como pretenden haber hecho, y c) no se establecen criterios para relacionar las fórmulas del cálculo con el lenguaje normativo ordinario, con lo que no existen razones para considerar que se trata de una lógica deóntica. Defiendo la idea de que, a los fines de fundamentar semánticamente la lógica deóntica, sólo es necesario que existan interpretaciones admisibles que atribuyan valores de verdad a las normas, y que este requisito es cumplido por la semántica usual de la lógica deóntica standard, con lo que el dilema de Jørgensen resulta ser un seudoproblema. In this paper I discuss a proposal from C. Alchourrón and A. Martino with which they try to face the problem posed to the foundation of deontic logic by Jørgensen' s dilemma. Their proposal is based on the idea that there is no problem at all in compatibilizing the fact that norms lack truth values with their possession of a logic, once it is denied that it is absolutely necessary to offer a semantic characterization of logical properties and relations, and the abstract notion of consequence is taken as primitive. They claim that the meaning of deontic operators, like that of logical terms in natural deduction, is completely expressed through their use, which is explained by means of rules of introduction and elimination. As an illustration, they present a calculus with which they intend to offer a foundation for standard deontic logic. I make three objections: a) They don' t use real rules of introduction for deontic operators; b) They don' t have derived standard deontic logic as they claim; c) There are no criteria for relating the formulas with ordinary normative discourse; so there are no reasons for considering their calculus as a deontic logic. I claim that, in order to give a semantical foundation to deontic logic it is only necessary that there are admissible interpretations that assign truth values to norms, and that this requisite is satisfied by the usual semantic of standard deontic logic. I conclude that Jørgensen' s dilemma is a pseudoproblem. (shrink)

The Problem of Iterated Ground is to explain what grounds truths about ground: if Γ grounds φ, what grounds that Γ grounds φ? This paper develops a novel solution to this problem. The basic idea is to connect ground to explanatory arguments. By developing a rigorous account of explanatory arguments we can equip operators for factive and non-factive ground with natural introduction and elimination rules. A satisfactory account of iterated ground falls directly out of the resulting logic: (...) non- factive grounding claims, if true, are zero-grounded in the sense of Fine. (shrink)

The paper reports that the explanations of the v-elimination rule in three commonly used introductory logic textbooks are misleading to students and can result in invalid inferences.

Deductive inference is usually regarded as being “tautological” or “analytical”: the information conveyed by the conclusion is contained in the information conveyed by the premises. This idea, however, clashes with the undecidability of first-order logic and with the (likely) intractability of Boolean logic. In this article, we address the problem both from the semantic and the proof-theoretical point of view. We propose a hierarchy of propositional logics that are all tractable (i.e. decidable in polynomial time), although by means of growing (...) computational resources, and converge towards classical propositional logic. The underlying claim is that this hierarchy can be used to represent increasing levels of “depth” or “informativeness” of Boolean reasoning. Special attention is paid to the most basic logic in this hierarchy, the pure “intelim logic”, which satisfies all the requirements of a natural deduction system (allowing both introduction and elimination rules for each logical operator) while admitting of a feasible (quadratic) decision procedure. We argue that this logic is “analytic” in a particularly strict sense, in that it rules out any use of “virtual information”, which is chiefly responsible for the combinatorial explosion of standard classical systems. As a result, analyticity and tractability are reconciled and growing degrees of computational complexity are associated with the depth at which the use of virtual information is allowed. (shrink)

I argue that ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ as commonly employed are ‘tonkish’ terms (as defined by Arthur Prior and Michael Dummett), licensing inferences from truths to falsehoods; indeed, that they are mega-tonkish terms, since their use is governed by different and competing sets of introduction and elimination rules, delivering different and inconsistent results. Thus ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ do not have determinate extensions, which means that generalizations about conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists do not have (...) determinate truth-values. Hence conspiracy theory theory – psychological or social scientific research into conspiracy theorists and what is wrong with them – is often about as intellectually respectable as an enquiry into bastards and what makes them so mean. (shrink)

The framework of natural deduction is extended by permitting rules as assumptions which may be discharged in the course of a derivation. this leads to the concept of rules of higher levels and to a general schema for introduction and elimination rules for arbitrary n-ary sentential operators. with respect to this schema, (functional) completeness "or", "if..then" and absurdity is proved.

This volume is the first ever collection devoted to the field of proof-theoretic semantics. Contributions address topics including the systematics of introduction and elimination rules and proofs of normalization, the categorial characterization of deductions, the relation between Heyting's and Gentzen's approaches to meaning, knowability paradoxes, proof-theoretic foundations of set theory, Dummett's justification of logical laws, Kreisel's theory of constructions, paradoxical reasoning, and the defence of model theory. The field of proof-theoretic semantics has existed for almost 50 years, (...) but the term itself was proposed by Schroeder-Heister in the 1980s. Proof-theoretic semantics explains the meaning of linguistic expressions in general and of logical constants in particular in terms of the notion of proof. This volume emerges from presentations at the Second International Conference on Proof-Theoretic Semantics in Tübingen in 2013, where contributing authors were asked to provide a self-contained description and analysis of a significant research question in this area. The contributions are representative of the field and should be of interest to logicians, philosophers, and mathematicians alike. (shrink)

The standard inferentialist approaches to modal logic tend to suffer from not being able to uniquely characterize the modal operators, require that introduction and elimination rules be interdefined, or rely on the introduction of possible-world like indexes into the object language itself. In this paper I introduce a hypersequent calculus that is flexible enough to capture many of the standard modal logics and does not suffer from the above problems. It is therefore an ideal candidate to (...) underwrite an inferentialist theory of meaning for modal operators. Here I treat specifically the modal logics K, D, T, S4, B, and S5. I show that the calculi are adequate for each set of models, and show that they meet a large set of criteria that are generally thought necessary for a calculus to underwrite a theory of meaning. (shrink)

Most type systems are agnostic regarding the evaluation strategy for the underlying languages, with the value restriction for ML which is absent in Haskell as a notable exception. As type systems become more precise, however, detailed properties of the operational semantics may become visible because properties captured by the types may be sound under one strategy but not the other. For example, intersection types distinguish between call-by-name and call-by-value functions, because the subtyping law ∩≤A→ is unsound for the latter in (...) the presence of effects.In this paper we develop a proof-theoretic framework for analyzing the interaction of types with evaluation order, based on the notion of polarity. Polarity was discovered through linear logic, but we propose a fresh origin in Dummett’s program of justifying the logical laws through alternative verificationist or pragmatist “meaning-theories”, which include a bias towards either introduction or elimination rules. We revisit Dummett’s analysis using the tools of Martin-Löf’s judgmental method, and then show how to extend it to a unified polarized logic, with Girard’s “shift” connectives acting as intermediaries. This logic safely combines intuitionistic and dual intuitionistic reasoning principles, while simultaneously admitting a focusing interpretation for the classical sequent calculus.Then, by applying the Curry–Howard isomorphism to polarized logic, we obtain a single programming language in which evaluation order is reflected at the level of types. Different logical notions correspond directly to natural programming constructs, such as pattern-matching, explicit substitutions, values and call-by-value continuations. We give examples demonstrating the expressiveness of the language and type system, and prove a basic but modular type safety result. We conclude with a brief discussion of extensions to the language with additional effects and types, and sketch the sort of explanation this can provide for operationally sensitive typing phenomena. (shrink)

The paper suggests a revision of the notion of harmony, a major necessary condition in proof-theoretic semantics for a natural-deduction proof-system to qualify as meaning conferring, when moving to a bilateral proof-system. The latter considers both forces of assertion and denial as primitive, and is applied here to positive logics, lacking negation altogether. It is suggested that in addition to the balance between (positive) introduction and elimination rules traditionally imposed by harmony, a balance should be imposed also (...) on: (i) negative introduction and elimination rules, and (ii) positive and negative introduction rules. The paper suggests a proof-theoretical definition of duality (not referring to truthtables), using which double harmony is defined. The paper proves that in a doubly-harmonious system, the coordination rule, typical to bilateral systems, is admissible. (shrink)

AGM-theory, named after its founders Carlos Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson, is the leading contemporary paradigm in the theory of belief-revision. The theory is reformulated here so as to deal with the central relational notions 'J is a contraction of K with respect to A' and 'J is a revision of K with respect to A'. The new theory is based on a principal-case analysis of the domains of definition of the three main kinds of theory-change (expansion, contraction and (...) revision). The new theory is stated by means of introduction and elimination rules for the relational notions. In this new setting one can re-examine the relationship between contraction and revision, using the appropriate versions of the so-called Levi and Harper identities. Among the positive results are the following. One can derive the extensionality of contraction and revision, rather than merely postulating it. Moreover, one can demonstrate the existence of revision-functions satisfying a principle of monotonicity. The full set of AGM-postulates for revision-functions allow for completely bizarre revisions. This motivates a Principle of Minimal Bloating, which needs to be stated as a separate postulate for revision. Moreover, contractions obtained in the usual way from the bizarre revisions, by using the Harper identity, satisfy Recovery. This provides a new reason (in addition to several others already adduced in the literature) for thinking that the contraction postulate of Recovery fails to capture the Principle of Minimal Mutilation. So the search is still on for a proper explication of the notion of minimal mutilation, to do service in both the theory of contraction and the theory of revision. The new relational formulation of AGM-theory, based on principal-case analysis, shares with the original, functional form of AGM-theory the idealizing assumption that the belief-sets of rational agents are to be modelled as consistent, logically closed sets of sentences. The upshot of the results presented here is that the new relational theory does a better job of making important matters clear than does the original functional theory. A new setting has been provided within which one can profitably address two pressing questions for A GM-theory: (1) how is the notion of minimal mutilation (by both contractions and revisions) best analyzed? and (2) how is one to rule out unnecessary bloating by revisions? (shrink)

Many logical systems are such that the addition of Prior's binary connective tonk to them leads to triviality, see [1, 8]. Since tonk is given by some introduction and elimination rules in natural deduction or sequent rules in Gentzen's sequent calculus, the unwanted effects of adding tonk show that some kind of restriction has to be imposed on the acceptable operational inferences rules, in particular if these rules are regarded as definitions of the operations (...) concerned. In this paper, a number of simple observations is made showing that the unwanted phenomenon exemplified by tonk in some logics also occurs in contexts in which tonk is acceptable. In fact, in any non-trivial context, the acceptance of arbitrary introduction rules for logical operations permits operations leading to triviality. Connectives that in all non-trivial contexts lead to triviality will be called non-trivially trivializing connectives. (shrink)

This paper introduces a multi-modal polymorphic type theory to model epistemic processes characterized by trust, defined as a second-order relation affecting the communication process between sources and a receiver. In this language, a set of senders is expressed by a modal prioritized context, whereas the receiver is formulated in terms of a contextually derived modal judgement. Introduction and elimination rules for modalities are based on the polymorphism of terms in the language. This leads to a multi-modal non-homogeneous (...) version of a type theory, in which we show the embedding of the modal operators into standard group knowledge operators. (shrink)

In different papers, Carnielli, W. & Rodrigues, A., Carnielli, W. Coniglio, M. & Rodrigues, A. and Rodrigues & Carnielli, present two logics motivated by the idea of capturing contradictions as conflicting evidence. The first logic is called BLE and the second—that is a conservative extension of BLE—is named LETJ. Roughly, BLE and LETJ are two non-classical logics in which the Laws of Explosion and Excluded Middle are not admissible. LETJ is built on top of BLE. Moreover, LETJ is a Logic (...) of Formal Inconsistency. This means that there is an operator that, roughly speaking, identifies a formula as having classical behavior. Both systems are motivated by the idea that there are different conditions for accepting or rejecting a sentence of our natural language. So, there are some special introduction and elimination rules in the theory that are capturing different conditions of use. Rodrigues & Carnielli’s paper has an interesting and challenging idea. According to them, BLE and LETJ are incompatible with dialetheia. It seems to show that these paraconsistent logics cannot be interpreted using truth-conditions that allow true contradictions. In short, BLE and LETJ talk about conflicting evidence avoiding to talk about gluts. I am going to argue against this point of view. Basically, I will firstly offer a new interpretation of BLE and LETJ that is compatible with dialetheia. The background of my position is to reject the one canonical interpretation thesis: the idea according to which a logical system has one standard interpretation. Then, I will secondly show that there is no logical basis to fix that Rodrigues & Carnielli’s interpretation is the canonical way to establish the content of logical notions of BLE and LETJ. Furthermore, the system LETJ captures inside classical logic. Then, I am also going to use this technical result to offer some further doubts about the one canonical interpretation thesis. (shrink)

In 2015 Dag Prawitz proposed a natural deduction ecumenical system, where classical logic and intuitionistic logic are codified in the same system. In his ecumenical system, Prawitz recovers the harmony of rules, but the rules for the classical operators do not satisfy separability. In fact, the classical rules are not pure, in the sense that negation is used in the definition of the introduction and elimination rules for the classical operators. In this work we (...) propose an ecumenical system adapting, to the natural deduction framework, Girard’s mechanism of stoup. This allows for the definition of a pure harmonic natural deduction system for the propositional fragment of Prawitz’s ecumenical logic. We conclude by presenting an extension proposal to the first-order setting and a different approach to purity based on some ideas proposed by Julien Murzi. (shrink)

I here argue that Ted Sider's indeterminacy argument against vagueness in quantifiers fails. Sider claims that vagueness entails precisifications, but holds that precisifications of quantifiers cannot be coherently described: they will either deliver the wrong logical form to quantified sentences, or involve a presupposition that contradicts the claim that the quantifier is vague. Assuming (as does Sider) that the “connectedness” of objects can be precisely defined, I present a counter-example to Sider's contention, consisting of a partial, implicit definition of the (...) existential quantifier that in effect sets a given degree of connectedness among the putative parts of an object as a condition upon there being something (in the sense in question) with those parts. I then argue that such an implicit definition, taken together with an “auxiliary logic” (e.g., introduction and elimination rules), proves to function as a precisification in just the same way as paradigmatic precisifications of, e.g., “red”. I also argue that with a quantifier that is stipulated as maximally tolerant as to what mereological sums there are, precisifications can be given in the form of truth-conditions of quantified sentences, rather than by implicit definition. (shrink)

In this essay, we extend earlier inferentialist-expressivist treatments of traditional logical, semantic, modal, and representational vocabulary (Brandom 1994, 2008, 2015; Peregrin 2014) to explanatory vocabulary. From this perspective, Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) appears to be an obvious starting point. In its simplest formulation, IBE has the form: A best explains why B, B; so A. It thereby captures one of the central inferential features of explanation. An inferentialist-expressivist treatment of “best explains” would treat it as a logical operator. (...) Analogous to the inferentialist-expressivist treatment of other logical operators, this essay aims to provide introduction and elimination rules for “best explains.” Indeed, by exhibiting a form of detachment, IBE superficially looks like an elimination rule. The sequent calculus LEA+, described in Section 5 below, makes good on this intuition. By showing how “A best explains why B” is related to the underlying, scientific inference “A, so B,” we can purchase the inference ticket of IBE for no more than the cost of science’s material inferences. (shrink)

Many prominent writers on the philosophy of logic, including Michael Dummett, Dag Prawitz, Neil Tennant, have held that the introduction and elimination rules of a logical connective must be ‘in harmony ’ if the connective is to possess a sense. This Harmony Thesis has been used to justify the choice of logic: in particular, supposed violations of it by the classical rules for negation have been the basis for arguments for switching from classical to intuitionistic logic. (...) The Thesis has also had an influence on the philosophy of language: some prominent writers in that area, notably Dummett and Robert Brandom, have taken it to be a special case of a more general requirement that the grounds for asserting a statement must cohere with its consequences. This essay considers various ways of making the Harmony Thesis precise and scrutinizes the most influential arguments for it. The verdict is negative: all the extant arguments for the Thesis are weak, and no version of it is remotely plausible. (shrink)

One may formulate the dependent product types of Martin-Löf type theory either in terms of abstraction and application operators like those for the lambda-calculus; or in terms of introduction and elimination rules like those for the other constructors of type theory. It is known that the latter rules are at least as strong as the former: we show that they are in fact strictly stronger. We also show, in the presence of the identity types, that the (...) elimination rule for dependent products–which is a “higher-order” inference rule in the sense of Schroeder-Heister–can be reformulated in a first-order manner. Finally, we consider the principle of function extensionality in type theory, which asserts that two elements of a dependent product type which are pointwise propositionally equal, are themselves propositionally equal. We demonstrate that the usual formulation of this principle fails to verify a number of very natural propositional equalities; and suggest an alternative formulation which rectifies this deficiency. (shrink)

Consider a general class of structural inference rules such as exchange, weakening, contraction and their generalizations. Among them, some are harmless but others do harm to cut elimination. Hence it is natural to ask under which condition cut elimination is preserved when a set of structural rules is added to a structure-free logic. The aim of this work is to give such a condition by using algebraic semantics. We consider full Lambek calculus (FL), i.e., intuitionistic logic (...) without any structural rules, as our basic framework. Residuated lattices are the algebraic structures corresponding to FL. In this setting, we introduce a criterion, called the propagation property, that can be stated both in syntactic and algebraic terminologies. We then show that, for any set R of structural rules, the cut elimination theorem holds for FL enriched with R if and only if R satisfies the propagation property. As an application, we show that any set R of structural rules can be "completed" into another set R*, so that the cut elimination theorem holds for FL enriched with R*, while the provability remains the same. (shrink)

There is a long tradition (See e.g. [9, 10]) starting from [12], according to which the meaning of a connective is determined by the introduction and elimination rules which are associated with it. The supporters of this thesis usually have in mind natural deduction systems of a certain ideal type (explained in Section 3 below). Unfortunately, already the handling of classical negation requires rules which are not of that type. This problem can be solved in the (...) framework of multiple-conclusion Gentzen-type systems (also first introduced in [12]), where instead of introduction and elimination rules there are left introduction rules and right introduction rules. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 273 - 306 Jan Dullaert was a direct student of John Mair and a teacher of Gaspar Lax, Juan de Celaya, and Juan Luis Vives. His commentary on Aristotle’s _Peri Hermeneias_ addresses the foundations of propositional logic, including a detailed analysis of conditionals and the semantics of logical connectives. Dullaert’s propositional logic is limited to the immediate implications of the semantics of these connectives, i.e., their introduction and elimination rules. In (...) the same context, he discusses several alternative treatments of semantic paradoxes, paying most attention to the approaches derived from Martin Le Maistre and John Mair. (shrink)

Kalrnaric. We set out a system T, consisting of normal proofs constructed by means of elegantly symmetrical introduction and elimination rules. In the system T there are two requirements, called ( ) and ()), on applications of discharge rules. T is sound and complete for Kalmaric arguments. ( ) requires nonvacuous discharge of assumptions; ()) requires that the assumption discharged be the sole one available of highest degree. We then consider a 'Duhemian' extension T*, obtained simply (...) by dropping the requirement ()). T* is a proper subsystem of intuitionistic relevant logic. Our main result is that T* is a double negation consistency companion to classical logic. Thus all one needs to add to T* to obtain classical logic is the (intuitionistic) absurdity rule, and the (classical) rule of double nega-. (shrink)

Using conjunction as an example, I show a technical and philosophical problem when trying to conciliate the currently prevailing views on the meaning of logical connectives: the inferientialist (also called 'syntactic') one based on introduction and elimination rules, and the representationalist (also called 'semantic') one given through truth tables. Mostly I show that the widespread strategy of using the truth theoretical definition of logical consequence to collapse both definitions must be rejected by inferentialists. An important consequence of (...) my argument is that there are different notions of conjunction at play in standard first order logic, and that the technical and philosophical connections between them are far from well established. (shrink)

In natural deduction classical logic is commonly formulated by adding a rule such as Double Negation Elimination (DNE) or Classical Reductio ad Absurdum (CRA) to a set of introduction and elimination rules sufficient for intuitionist first-order logic with conjunction, disjunction, implication, negation and the universal and existential quantifiers all taken as primitive. The natural deduction formulation of intuitionist logic, coming from Gentzen, has nice properties:— (i) the separation property: an intuitionistically valid inference is derivable using only (...) the introduction and elimination rules governing the connectives and/or quantifiers that occur in the premises (if any) and conclusion; (ii) the (strict) subformula property: more narrowly, there is a derivation of any intuitionistically valid inference that employs only subformulas of the formulas occurring in premises (if any) and conclusion. (Every formula is, of course, a subformula of itself.). (shrink)

Proof-theoretic validity has proven a useful tool for proof-theoretic semantics, because it explains the harmony found in the introduction and elimination rules for the intuitionistic calculus. However, the demonstration that a rule of proof is proof-theoretically valid requires checking an infinite number of cases, which raises the question of whether proof-theoretic validity is decidable. It is proven here that it is for the most prominent formulations in the literature for propositional logic.

The best-known syntactic account of the logical constants is inferentialism. Following Wittgenstein’s thought that meaning is use, inferentialists argue that meanings of expressions are given by introduction and elimination rules. This is especially plausible for the logical constants, where standard presentations divide inference rules in just this way. But not just any rules will do, as we’ve learnt from Prior’s famous example of tonk, and the usual extra constraint is harmony. Where does this leave identity? (...) It’s usually taken as a logical constant but it doesn’t seem harmonious: standardly, the introduction rule only concerns a subset of the formulas canvassed by the elimination rule. In response, Read [5, 8] and Klev [3] amend the standard approach. We argue that both attempts fail, in part because of a misconception regarding inferentialism and identity that we aim to identify and clear up. (shrink)

This work agrees and supports the I. Hacking’s thesis regarding the meaningof the logical constants accordingly with Gentzen’s Introduction and Elimination Rules of Sequent Calculus, corresponding with the abstract conception of the notion of logical consequence. We would like to ask for the minimum rules that must satisfy a connective in order to be considered as a genuine negation. Mainly, we will refer to both da Costa’s C-Systems and Priest’s LP system. Finally, we will analyze the (...) presentations of these systems within the Sequent Logic to show that paraconsistent negation lacks of pure rules of negation-elimination and negation-introduction rules or that they involve other connectives, thus making difficult to assign an univocal meaning to paraconsistent negation. (shrink)

Cut-elimination theorems constitute one of the most important classes of theorems of proof theory. Since Gentzen’s proof of the cut-elimination theorem for the system LK, several other proofs have been proposed. Even though the techniques of these proofs can be modified to sequent systems other than $$\textbf{LK}$$, they are essentially of a very particular nature; each of them describes an algorithm to transform a given proof to a cut-free proof. However, due to its reliance on heavy syntactic arguments (...) and case distinctions, such an algorithm makes the fundamental structure of the argument rather opaque. We, therefore, consider rules abstractly, within the framework of logical structures familiar from universal logic in the sense of Béziau (Universal logic, Prague, 1994) and aim to clarify the essence of the so-called “elimination theorems”. To do this, we first give a non-algorithmic proof of the cut-elimination theorem for the propositional fragment of $$\textbf{LK}$$. From this proof, we abstract the essential features of the argument and define something called normal sequent structures relative to a particular rule. We then prove a version of the rule-elimination theorem for these. Abstracting even more, we define abstract sequent structures and show that for these structures, the corresponding version of the rule-elimination theorem has a converse as well. (shrink)

Context-dependent rules are an obstacle to cut elimination. Turning to a generalised sequent style formulation using deep inferences is helpful, and for the calculus presented here it is essential. Cut elimination is shown for a substructural, multiplicative, pure propositional calculus. Moreover we consider the extra problems induced by non-logical axioms and extend the results to additive connectives and quantifiers.