We first note that Gentzen's proof-reduction for his consistency proof of PA can be directly interpreted as moves of Kirby-Paris' Hydra Game, which implies a direct independence proof of the game . Buchholz's Hydra Game for labeled hydras is known to be much stronger than PA. However, we show that the one-dimensional version of Buchholz's Game can be exactly identified to Kirby-Paris' Game , by a simple and natural interpretation . Jervell proposed another type of a (...) combinatorial game, by abstracting Gentzen's proof-reductions and showed that his game is independent of PA. We show that this Jervell's game is actually much stronger than PA, by showing that the critical ordinal of Jervell's game is φω = ϵ0) in the Veblen hierarchy of ordinals. (shrink)

The reductive, as opposed to deductive, view of logic is the form of logic that is, perhaps, most widely employed in practical reasoning. In particular, it is the basis of logic programming. Here, building on the idea of uniform proof in reductive logic, we give a treatment of logic programming for BI, the logic of bunched implications, giving both operational and denotational semantics, together with soundness and completeness theorems, all couched in terms of the resource interpretation of BI’s semantics. (...) We use this set-up as a basis for exploring how coalgebraic semantics can, in contrast to the basic denotational semantics, be used to describe the concrete operational choices that are an essential part of proof-search. The overall aim, toward which this paper can be seen as an initial step, is to develop a uniform, generic, mathematical framework for understanding the relationship between the deductive structure of logics and the control structures of the corresponding reductive paradigm. (shrink)

The goals of reduction andreductionism in the natural sciences are mainly explanatoryin character, while those inmathematics are primarily foundational.In contrast to global reductionistprograms which aim to reduce all ofmathematics to one supposedly ``universal'' system or foundational scheme, reductive proof theory pursues local reductions of one formal system to another which is more justified in some sense. In this direction, two specific rationales have been proposed as aims for reductive proof theory, the constructive consistency-proof rationale and the (...) foundational reduction rationale. However, recent advances in proof theory force one to consider the viability of these rationales. Despite the genuine problems of foundational significance raised by that work, the paper concludes with a defense of reductive proof theory at a minimum as one of the principal means to lay out what rests on what in mathematics. In an extensive appendix to the paper,various reduction relations betweensystems are explained and compared, and arguments against proof-theoretic reduction as a ``good'' reducibilityrelation are taken up and rebutted. (shrink)

Looking at proof theory as an attempt to ‘code’ the general pattern of the logical steps of a mathematical proof, the question of what kind of rules can make the meaning of a logical connective completely explicit does not seem to have been answered satisfactorily. The lambda calculus seems to have been more coherent simply because the use of ‘λ’ together with its projection 'apply' is specified by what can be called a 'reduction' rule: β‐conversion. We attempt (...) to analyse the role of proof rules, making use of a set of formal rules designed to capture both the notions of proof theory and those of the lambda‐calculus: Martin‐Löf's Intuitionistic Type Theory. (shrink)

This book is a specialized monograph on the development of the mathematical and computational metatheory of reductive logic and proof-search including proof-theoretic, semantic/model-theoretic and algorithmic aspects. The scope ranges from the conceptual background to reductive logic, through its mathematical metatheory, to its modern applications in the computational sciences.

The intention here is that of giving a formal underpinning to the idea of ‘meaning-is-use’ which, even if based on proofs, it is rather different from proof-theoretic semantics as in the Dummett–Prawitz tradition. Instead, it is based on the idea that the meaning of logical constants are given by the explanation of immediate consequences, which in formalistic terms means the effect of elimination rules on the result of introduction rules, i.e. the so-called reduction rules. For that we suggest (...) an extension to the Curry– Howard interpretation which draws on the idea of labelled deduction, and brings back Frege’s device of variable-abstraction to operate on the labels (i.e., proof-terms) alongside formulas of predicate logic. (shrink)

Three distinctly different interpretations of Aristotle’s notion of a sullogismos in Prior Analytics can be traced: (1) a valid or invalid premise-conclusion argument (2) a single, logically true conditional proposition and (3) a cogent argumentation or deduction. Remarkably the three interpretations hold similar notions about the logical relationships among the sullogismoi. This is most apparent in their conflating three processes that Aristotle especially distinguishes: completion (A4-6)reduction(A7) and analysis (A45). Interpretive problems result from not sufficiently recognizing Aristotle’s remarkable degree of (...) metalogical sophistication to distinguish logical syntax from semantics and, thus, also from not grasping him to refine the deduction system of his underlying logic. While it is obvious that Aristotle most often uses ‘sullogimos’ to denote a valid argument of a certain kind, we show that at Prior Analytics A4-6, 7, 45 Aristotle specifically treats a sullogismos as an elemental argument pattern having only valid instances and that such a pattern then serves as a rule of deduction in his syllogistic logic. By extracting Aristotle’s understanding of three proof-theoretic processes, this paper provides new insight into what Aristotle thinks reasoning syllogistically is and, moreover, it resolves three problems in the most recent interpretation that takes a sullogismos to be a deduction. (shrink)

Hilbert’s program in the philosophy of mathematics comes in two parts. One part is a technical part. To carry out this part of the program one has to prove a certain technical result. The other part of the program is a philosophical part. It is concerned with philosophical questions that are the real aim of the program. To carry out this part one, basically, has to show why the technical part answers the philosophical questions one wanted to have answered. Hilbert (...) probably thought that he had completed the philosophical part of his program, maybe up to a few details. What was left to do was the technical part. To carry it out one, roughly, had to give a precise axiomatization of mathematics and show that it is consistent on purely finitistic grounds. This would come down to giving a relative consistency proof of mathematics in finitist mathematics, or to give a proof-theoretic reduction of mathematics on to finitist mathematics (we will look at these notions in more detail soon). It is widely believed that Gödel’s theorems showed that the technical part of Hilbert’s program could not be carried out. Gödel’s theorems show that the consistency of arithmetic can not even be proven in arithmetic, not to speak of by finitistic means alone. So, the technical part of Hilbert’s program is hopeless, and since Hilbert’s program essentially relied on both the technical and the philosophical part, Hilbert’s program as a whole is hopeless. Justified as this attitude is, it is a bit unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it takes away too much attention from the philosophical part of Hilbert’s program. And this is unfortunate for two reasons. (shrink)

The intention here is that of giving a formal underpinning to the idea of ‘meaning-is-use’ which, even if based on proofs, it is rather different from proof-theoretic semantics as in the Dummett–Prawitz tradition. Instead, it is based on the idea that the meaning of logical constants are given by the explanation of immediate consequences, which in formalistic terms means the effect of elimination rules on the result of introduction rules, i.e. the so-called reduction rules. For that we suggest (...) an extension to the Curry– Howard interpretation which draws on the idea of labelled deduction, and brings back Frege’s device of variable-abstraction to operate on the labels (i.e., proof-terms) alongside formulas of predicate logic. (shrink)

It has been argued that reduction procedures are closely connected to the question about identity of proofs and that accepting certain reductions would lead to a trivialization of identity of proofs in the sense that every derivation of the same conclusion would have to be identified. In this paper it will be shown that the question, which reductions we accept in our system, is not only important if we see them as generating a theory of proof identity but (...) is also decisive for the more general question whether a proof has meaningful content. There are certain reductions which would not only force us to identify proofs of different arbitrary formulas but which would render derivations in a system allowing them meaningless. To exclude such cases, a minimal criterion is proposed which reductions have to fulfill to be acceptable. (shrink)

This book is a specialized monograph on the development of the mathematical and computational metatheory of reductive logic and proof-search, areas of logic that are becoming important in computer science. A systematic foundational text on these emerging topics, it includes proof-theoretic, semantic/model-theoretic and algorithmic aspects. The scope ranges from the conceptual background to reductive logic, through its mathematical metatheory, to its modern applications in the computational sciences. Suitable for researchers and graduate students in mathematical, computational and philosophical logic, (...) and in theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence, this is the latest in the prestigous world-renowned Oxford Logic Guides, which contains Michael Dummet's Elements of intuitionism, Dov M. Gabbay, Mark A. Reynolds, and Marcelo Finger's Temporal Logic Mathematical Foundations and Computational Aspects, J. M. Dunn and G. Hardegree's Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic, H. Rott's Change, Choice and Inference: A Study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, and P. T. Johnstone's Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium: Volumes 1 and 2. (shrink)

We build on an existing a term-sequent logic for the λ-calculus. We formulate a general sequent system that fully integrates αβη-reductions between untyped λ-terms into first order logic. We prove a cut-elimination result and then offer an application of cut-elimination by giving a notion of uniform proof for λ-terms. We suggest how this allows us to view the calculus of untyped αβ-reductions as a logic programming language (as well as a functional programming language, as it is traditionally seen).

Dag Prawitz (1971) put forward the idea that an admissible reduction process does not affect the identity of proofs represented by derivations in natural deduction. The idea relies on his conjecture that two derivations represent the same proof if and only if they are equivalent in the sense that they are reflexive, transitive and symmetric closure of the immediate reducibility relation. Schroeder-Heister and Tranchini (2017) accept Prawitz’s conjecture and propose the triviality test as the criterion for admissible reductions. (...) In the present paper, we will consider two main troubles of the triviality test. The first is the obscurity of a method of evaluating admissible reductions. The second is the circularity problem that the triviality test already assumes the set of admissible reduction procedures. For the solution of the problems, we will propose the spoiler test which immunes the problems of the triviality test and has the role of the criterion for admissible reductions. At last, we shall cover a plausible problem of the spoiler test that can be caused by Crabbé’s case. (shrink)

Dynamic and proof-conditional approaches to discourse (exemplified by Discourse Representation Theory and Type-Theoretical Grammar, respectively) are related through translations and transitions labeled by first-order formulas with anaphoric twists. Type-theoretic contexts are defined relative to a signature and instantiated modeltheoretically, subject to change.

We confirm a conjecture, about neat embeddings of cylindric algebras, made in 1969 by J. D. Monk, and a later conjecture by Maddux about relation algebras obtained from cylindric algebras. These results in algebraic logic have the following consequence for predicate logic: for every finite cardinal α ≥ 3 there is a logically valid sentence X, in a first-order language L with equality and exactly one nonlogical binary relation symbol E, such that X contains only 3 variables (each of which (...) may occur arbitrarily many times), X has a proof containing exactly α + 1 variables, but X has no proof containing only α variables. This solves a problem posed by Tarski and Givant in 1987. (shrink)

In his classic 1936 paper Tarski sought to motivate his definition of logical consequence by appeal to the inference form: P(0), P(1), . . ., P(n), . . . therefore ∀nP(n). This is prima facie puzzling because these inferences are seemingly first-order and Tarski knew that Gödel had shown first-order proof methods to be complete, and because ∀nP(n) is not a logical consequence of P(0), P(1), . . ., P(n), . . . by Taski's proposed definition. An attempt to (...) resolve the puzzle due to Etchemendy is considered and rejected. A second attempt due to Gómez-Torrente is accepted as far as it goes, but it is argued that it raises a further puzzle of its own: it takes the plausibility of Tarski's claim that his definition captures our common concept of logical consequence to depend upon our common concept being a reductive conception. A further interpretation of what Tarski had in mind when he offered the example is proposed, using materials well known to Tarski at the time. It is argued that this interpretation makes the motivating example independent of reductive definitions which take natural numbers to be higher-order set theoretic entities, and it also explains why he did not regard the distinction between defined and primitive terms as pressing, as was the distinction between logical and nonlogical terms. (shrink)

The paper explores the potential of Byzantine diagrams in syllogistic logic. Byzantine diagrams are originated by Byzantine scholars in the early modern period to use as tools for teaching and studying Aristotelian logic. This paper presents pioneering work on employing Byzantine diagrams for checking syllogistic validity through reduction.

Current dynamic epistemic logics often become cumbersome and opaque when common knowledge is added. In this paper we propose new versions that extend the underlying static epistemic language in such a way that dynamic completeness proofs can be obtained by perspicuous reduction axioms.

We consider reducts of the structure $\mathscr{R} = \langle\mathbb{R}, +, \cdot, <\rangle$ and other real closed fields. We compete the proof that there exists a unique reduct between $\langle\mathbb{R}, +, <, \lambda_a\rangle_{a\in\mathbb{R}}$ and R, and we demonstrate how to recover the definition of multiplication in more general contexts than the semialgebraic one. We then conclude a similar result for reducts between $\langle\mathbb{R}, \cdot, <\rangle$ and R and for general real closed fields.

A reduction rule is introduced as a transformation of proof figures in implicational classical logic. Proof figures are represented as typed terms in a -calculus with a new constant P (()). It is shown that all terms with the same type are equivalent with respect to -reduction augmented by this P-reduction rule. Hence all the proofs of the same implicational formula are equivalent. It is also shown that strong normalization fails for P-reduction. Weak normalization (...) is shown for P-reduction with another reduction rule which simplifies of (( ) ) into an atomic type. (shrink)

Journal of Mathematical Logic, Volume 22, Issue 03, December 2022. Hirschfeldt and Jockusch (2016) introduced a two-player game in which winning strategies for one or the other player precisely correspond to implications and non-implications between [math] principles over [math]-models of [math]. They also introduced a version of this game that similarly captures provability over [math]. We generalize and extend this game-theoretic framework to other formal systems, and establish a certain compactness result that shows that if an implication [math] between two (...) principles holds, then there exists a winning strategy that achieves victory in a number of moves bounded by a number independent of the specific run of the game. This compactness result generalizes an old proof-theoretic fact noted by H. Wang (1981), and has applications to the reverse mathematics of combinatorial principles. We also demonstrate how this framework leads to a new kind of analysis of the logical strength of mathematical problems that refines both that of reverse mathematics and that of computability-theoretic notions such as Weihrauch reducibility, allowing for a kind of fine-structural comparison between [math] principles that has both computability-theoretic and proof-theoretic aspects, and can help us distinguish between these, for example by showing that a certain use of a principle in a proof is “purely proof-theoretic”, as opposed to relying on its computability-theoretic strength. We give examples of this analysis to a number of principles at the level of [math], uncovering new differences between their logical strengths. (shrink)

The third author gave a natural deduction style proof system called the \-calculus for implicational fragment of classical logic in. In -calculus, 2015, Post-proceedings of the RIMS Workshop “Proof Theory, Computability Theory and Related Issues”, to appear), the fourth author gave a natural subsystem “intuitionistic \-calculus” of the \-calculus, and showed the system corresponds to intuitionistic logic. The proof is given with tree sequent calculus, but is complicated. In this paper, we introduce some reduction rules for (...) the \-calculus, and give a simple and purely syntactical proof to the theorem by use of the reduction. In addition, we show that we can give a computation model with rich expressive power with our system. (shrink)

The paper explores the potential of Byzantine diagrams in syllogistic logic. Byzantine diagrams are originated by Byzantine scholars in the early modern period to use as tools for teaching and studying Aristotelian logic. This paper presents pioneering work on employing Byzantine diagrams for checking syllogistic validity through reduction.

This paper defends the view that Frege’s reduction of arithmetic to logic would, if successful, have shown that arithmetical knowledge is analytic in essentially Kant’s sense. It is argued, as against Paul Benacerraf, that Frege’s apparent acceptance of multiple reductions is compatible with this epistemological thesis. The importance of this defense is that (a) it clarifies the role of proof, definition, and analysis in Frege’s logicist works; and (b) it demonstrates that the Fregean style of reduction is (...) a valuable tool for those who would investigate the nature of arithmetical knowledge. (shrink)

Using the concept of notations for infinitary derivations we give an explanation of Takeuti's reduction steps on finite derivations (used in his consistency proof for Π1 1-CA) in terms of the more perspicious infinitary approach from [BS88].

Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a multi-modal logic for reasoning about the change of knowledge in multi-agent systems. It extends epistemic logic by a modal operator for actions which announce logical formulas to other agents. In Hilbert-style proof calculi for DEL, modal action formulas are reduced to epistemic logic, whereas current sequent calculi for DEL are labelled systems which internalize the semantic accessibility relation of the modal operators, as well as the accessibility relation underlying the semantics of the actions. (...) We present a novel cut-free ordinary sequent calculus, called |$ \textbf{G4}_{P,A}[] $|⁠, for propositional DEL. In contrast to the known sequent calculi, our calculus does not internalize the accessibility relations, but—similar to Hilbert style proof calculi—action formulas are reduced to epistemic formulas. Since no ordinary sequent calculus for full S5 modal logic is known, the proof rules for the knowledge operator and the Boolean operators are those of an underlying S4 modal calculus. We show the soundness and completeness of |$ \textbf{G4}_{P,A}[] $| and prove also the admissibility of the cut-rule and of several other rules for introducing the action modality. (shrink)

In this article we study several reduction principles in the context of Simpson’s set theory ATR0S\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ATR_{0}^{S}$$\end{document} and Kripke-Platek set theory KP (with infinity). Since ATR0S\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ATR_{0}^{S}$$\end{document} is the set-theoretic version of ATR0 there is a direct link to second order arithmetic and the results for reductions over ATR0S\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ATR_{0}^{S}$$\end{document} are as expected and more or (...) less straightforward. However, over KP we obtain several interesting new results and are lead to some open questions. (shrink)

We present a general schema of easy normalization proofs for finite systems S like first-order arithmetic or subsystems of analysis, which have good infinitary counterparts S ∞ . We consider a new system S ∞ + with essentially the same rules as S ∞ but different derivable objects: a derivation d∈S ∞ + of a sequent Γ contains a derivation Φ∈S of Γ . Three simple conditions on Φ including a normal form theorem for S ∞ + easily imply a (...) weak normalization theorem for S . We give three examples of application of this schema. First, we take S≡PA but restrict the attention to derivations of Σ 1 0 -sentences. In this case it is possible to take S ∞ + to be essentially standard formulation of PA ∞ . Next, we illustrate extension to subsystems of analysis and consider the system BI 1 ∗ of W. Buchholz having the strength of ID 1 , again for derivations of Σ 1 0 -sentences. Finally, we return to the first-order arithmetic to illustrate changes needed to treat derivations of arbitrary formulas. (shrink)

The paper continues a series of results on cut-rule axiomatizability of the Lambek calculus. It provides a complete solution of a problem which was solved partially in one of the author''s earlier papers. It is proved that the product-free Lambek Calculus with the empty string (L 0) is not finitely axiomatizable if the only rule of inference admitted is Lambek''s cut rule. The proof makes use of the (infinitely) cut-rule axiomatized calculus C designed by the author exactly for this (...) purpose. (shrink)

Supervenience physicalism attempts to combine non-reductionism about properties with a physical determination thesis in such a way as to ensure physicalism. I argue that this attempt is unsuccessful: the specific supervenience relation in question is either strong enough to ensure reductionism, as in the case of strong supervenience, or too weak to yield physical determination, as in the case of global supervenience. The argument develops in three stages. First, I propose a distinction between two types of reductionism, definitional and scientific, (...) a distinction thanks to which we can reply to a standard objection against the ontological reductionism of strong supervenience. Second, I claim that because of "the problem of random distribution," global supervenience needs strengthening to be an adequate relation to capture our physicalistic intuitions; and I show, in accordance with Stalnaker's relevant proof, why a natural strengthening of global supervenience renders it equivalent to strong supervenience. Finally, I argue against Stalnaker about the possibility of a non-reductionist global supervenience. The upshot is that despite appearances, supervenience physicalism is a form of reductive physicalism. (shrink)

The proof-theoretic results on axiomatic theories oftruth obtained by different authors in recent years are surveyed.In particular, the theories of truth are related to subsystems ofsecond-order analysis. On the basis of these results, thesuitability of axiomatic theories of truth for ontologicalreduction is evaluated.

It has often been remarked that the metatheory of strong reduction $\succ$ , the combinatory analogue of βη-reduction ${\twoheadrightarrow_{\beta\eta}}$ in λ-calculus, is rather complicated. In particular, although the confluence of $\succ$ is an easy consequence of ${\twoheadrightarrow_{\beta\eta}}$ being confluent, no direct proof of this fact is known. Curry and Hindley’s problem, dating back to 1958, asks for a self-contained proof of the confluence of $\succ$ , one which makes no detour through λ-calculus. We answer positively to (...) this question, by extending and exploiting the technique of transitivity elimination for ‘analytic’ combinatory proof systems, which has been introduced in previous papers of ours. Indeed, a very short proof of the confluence of $\succ$ immediately follows from the main result of the present paper, namely that a certain analytic proof system G e [ $\mathbb {C}$ ] , which is equivalent to the standard proof system CL ext of Combinatory Logic with extensionality, admits effective transitivity elimination. In turn, the proof of transitivity elimination—which, by the way, we are able to provide not only for G e [ $\mathbb {C}$ ] but also, in full generality, for arbitrary analytic combinatory systems with extensionality—employs purely proof-theoretical techniques, and is entirely contained within the theory of combinators. (shrink)

The paper gives a soundness and completeness proof for the implicative fragment of intuitionistic calculus with respect to the semantics of computability logic, which understands intuitionistic implication as interactive algorithmic reduction. This concept — more precisely, the associated concept of reducibility — is a generalization of Turing reducibility from the traditional, input/output sorts of problems to computational tasks of arbitrary degrees of interactivity.

The paths or ways to the transcendental reduction are a pivotal phenomenological notion in Husserl’s philosophy. The metaphor of path, in fact, alludes to the demonstrative proofs of transcendental phenomenology. Nonetheless, Husserlian scholarship has not yet been able to end the disputes surrounding this topic, and as a result, competing interpretations continue to prevail. Since existing theories about the paths have not yet been cataloged or analyzed in their global context, I intend to classify the main existing theories about (...) the paths and evaluate the trend established by Iso Kern. Thus, this paper answers the following questions: how many kinds of theories about the paths are there? And, how plausible is the trend and approach initiated by Kern? In order to evaluate each theory, I will compare the interpretation with its exemplary cases. The key contribution of this investigation is therefore twofold: to distinguish with unequivocal concepts the two main trends of hermeneutical theories in play and to evaluate the plausibility of the aforementioned Kernian one. The paper also attempts to show that the hermeneutical approach initiated by Kern has no contextual examples for its conceptual scheme and should consequently be abandoned in favor of an alternative solution. (shrink)

We introduce an extension of natural deduction that is suitable for dealing with modal operators and induction. We provide a proof reduction system and we prove a strong normalization theorem for an intuitionistic calculus. As a consequence we obtain a purely syntactic proof of consistency. We also present a classical calculus and we relate provability in the two calculi by means of an adequate formula translation.

In this paper we present a method to reduce the decision problem of several infinite-valued propositional logics to their finite-valued counterparts. We apply our method to Łukasiewicz, Gödel and Product logics and to some of their combinations. As a byproduct we define sequent calculi for all these infinite-valued logics and we give an alternative proof that their tautology problems are in co-NP.

The past decade has seen an explosion of work on calculi of explicit substitutions. Numerous works have illustrated the usefulness of these calculi for practical notions like the implementation of typed functional programming languages and higher order proof assistants. It has also been shown that eta-reduction is useful for adapting substitution calculi for practical problems like higher order unification. This paper concentrates on rewrite rules for eta-reduction in three different styles of explicit substitution calculi: λσ, λse and (...) the suspension calculus. Both λσ and λse when extended with eta-reduction rules, have proved useful for solving higher order unification. We enlarge the suspension calculus with an adequate eta-reduction rule which we show to preserve termination and confluence of the associated substitution calculus and to correspond to the eta rules of the other two calculi. We prove that λσ and λse as well as λσ and the suspension calculus are non-comparable while λse is more adequate than the suspension calculus in simulating one-step beta-reduction. After defining the eta-reduction rule in the suspension calculus, and after comparing these three calculi of explicit substitutions , we then concentrate on the implementation of the rewrite rules of eta-reduction in these calculi. We note that it is usual practice when implementing the eta rule for substitution calculi, to mix isolated applications of eta-reduction with the application of other rules of the corresponding substitution calculi. The main disadvantage of this practice is that the eta rewrite rules so obtained are unclean because they have an operational semantics different from that of the eta-reduction of the λ-calculus. For the three calculi in question enlarged with adequate eta rules we show how to implement these eta rules. For the λse we build a clean implementation of the eta rule and we prove that it is not possible to follow the same approach for the λσ and λsusp. (shrink)

Using appropriate notation systems for proofs, cut-reduction can often be rendered feasible on these notations. Explicit bounds can be given. Developing a suitable notation system for Bounded Arithmetic, and applying these bounds, all the known results on definable functions of certain such theories can be reobtained in a uniform way.

Robert Burch describes Peircean Algebraic Logic as a language to express Peirce's “unitary logical vision” , which Peirce tried to formulate using different logical systems. A “correct” formulation of Peirce's vision then should allow a mathematical proof of Peirce's Reduction Thesis, that all relations can be generated from the ensemble of unary, binary, and ternary relations, but that at least some ternary relations cannot be reduced to relations of lower arity.Based on Burch's algebraization, the authors further simplify the (...) mathematical structure of PAL and remove a restriction imposed by Burch, making the resulting system in its expressiveness more similar to Peirce's system of existential graphs. The drawback, however, is that the proof of the Reduction Thesis from Burch no longer holds. A new proof was introduced in Hereth Correia, and Pöschel and was published in full detail in Hereth .In this paper, we provide proof of Peirce's Reduction Thesis using a graph notation similar to Peirce's existential graphs. (shrink)

The article presents a full proof‐theoretic semantics for natural deduction based on an extended inversion principle: the elimination rule for an operator q may invert the introduction rule for q, but also vice versa, the introduction rule for a connective q may invert the elimination rule for q. Such an inversion—extending Prawitz' concept of inversion—gives the following theorem: Inversion for two rules of operator q (intro rule, elim rule) exists iff a reduction of a maximum formula for q (...) exists. The inversion theorem is specified to two logics, Lambek calculus (LC) and intuitionistic linear logic (ILL), with four propositional connectives: two multiplicatives (implication and conjunction) and two additives (conjunction and disjunction), with two quantifiers and two modals. LC is defined by using elimination rules by composition. ILL is defined by using usual general elimination rules. Elimination rules by composition are an exciting alternative to general elimination rules; in some cases, they do not need permutations. (shrink)