Evidence is given that implication (and its special case, negation) carry the logical strength of a system of formal logic. This is done by proving normalization and cut elimination for a system based on combinatory logic or λ-calculus with logical constants for and, or, all, and exists, but with none for either implication or negation. The proof is strictly finitary, showing that this system is very weak. The results can be extended to a "classical" version of the system. They can (...) also be extended to a system with a restricted set of rules for implication: the result is a system of intuitionistic higher-order BCK logic with unrestricted comprehension and without restriction on the rules for disjunction elimination and existential elimination. The result does not extend to the classical version of the BCK logic. (shrink)

In the literature on self-referential paradoxes one of the hardest and most challenging problems is that of revenge. This problem can take many shapes, but, typically, it besets non-classical accounts of some semantic notion, such as truth, that depend on a set of classically defined meta-theoretic concepts, like validity, consistency, and so on. A particularly troubling form of revenge that has received a lot of attention lately involves the concept of validity. The difficulty lies in that the non-classical logician cannot (...) accept her own definition of validity because it is given in a classical meta-theory. It is often suggested that this mismatch between the consequence relation of the account being espoused and the consequence relation of the meta-theory is a serious embarrassment. The main goal of the paper is to explore whether certain substructural accounts of the paradoxes can avoid this sort of embarrassment. Typically, these accounts are expressively incomplete, since they cannot assert in the object language that certain invalid arguments are in fact invalid. To overcome this difficulty I develop a novel type of hybrid proof-procedure, one that takes invalidities to be just as fundamental as validities. I prove that this proof-procedure enjoys a number of interesting properties and I analyze the prospects of applying it to languages capable of expressing self-referential statements. (shrink)

In this note, we will study four implicational logicsB, BI, BB and BBI. In [5], Martin and Meyer proved that a formula is provable inBB if and only if is provable inBBI and is not of the form of » . Though it gave a positive solution to theP - W problem, their method was semantical and not easy to grasp. We shall give a syntactical proof of the syntactical relation betweenBB andBBI logics. It also includes a syntactical proof of (...) Powers and Dwyer's theorem that is proved semantically in [5]. Moreover, we shall establish the same relation betweenB andBI logics asBB andBBI logics. This relation seems to say thatB logic is meaningful, and so we think thatB logic is the weakest among meaningful logics. Therefore, by Theorem 1.1, our Gentzentype system forBI logic may be regarded as the most basic among all meaningful logics. It should be mentioned here that the first syntactical proof ofP - W problem is given by Misao Nagayama [6]. (shrink)

This paper shows a role of the contraction rule in decision problems for the logics weaker than the intuitionistic logic that are obtained by deleting some or all of structural rules. It is well-known that for such a predicate logic L, if L does not have the contraction rule then it is decidable. In this paper, it will be shown first that the predicate logic FLec with the contraction and exchange rules, but without the weakening rule, is undecidable while the (...) propositional fragment of FLec is decidable. On the other hand, it will be remarked that logics without the contraction rule are still decidable, if our language contains function symbols. (shrink)

A first-order temporal non-commutative logic TN[l], which has no structural rules and has some l-bounded linear-time temporal operators, is introduced as a Gentzen-type sequent calculus. The logic TN[l] allows us to provide not only time-dependent, resource-sensitive, ordered, but also hierarchical reasoning. Decidability, cut-elimination and completeness (w.r.t. phase semantics) theorems are shown for TN[l]. An advantage of TN[l] is its decidability, because the standard first-order linear-time temporal logic is undecidable. A correspondence theorem between TN[l] and a resource indexed non-commutative logic RN[l] (...) is also shown. This theorem is intended to state that “time” is regarded as a “resource”. (shrink)

A first-order dynamic non-commutative logic, which has no structural rules and has some program operators, is introduced as a Gentzen-type sequent calculus. Decidability, cut-elimination and completeness theorems are shown for DN or its fragments. DN is intended to represent not only program-based, resource-sensitive, ordered, sequence-based, but also hierarchical reasoning.

Substructural logics are logics obtained from a sequent formulation of intuitionistic or classical logic by rejecting some structural rules. The substructural logics considered here are linear logic, relevant logic and BCK logic. It is proved that first-order variants of these logics with an intuitionistic negation can be embedded by modal translations into S4-type extensions of these logics with a classical, involutive, negation. Related embeddings via translations like the double-negation translation are also considered. Embeddings into analogues of S4 are obtained with (...) the help of cut elimination for sequent formulations of our substructural logics and their modal extensions. These results are proved for systems with equality too. (shrink)