Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Arnon Avron, The Semantics and Proof Theory of Linear Logic.Linear logic is a new logic which was recently developed by Girard in order to provide a logical basis for the study of parallelism. It is described and investigated in Gi]. Girard's presentation of his logic is not so standard. In this paper we shall provide more standard proof systems and semantics. We shall also extend part of Girard's results by investigating the consequence relations associated with Linear Logic and by proving corresponding str ong completeness theorems. Finally, we shall investigate the relation between Linear Logic and previously known systems, especially Relevance logics.
Similar books and articles
In 1958 J. Lambek introduced a calculusL of syntactic types and defined an equivalence relation on types: x y means that there exists a sequence x=x1,...,xn=y (n 1), such thatx i x i+1 or xi+ x i (1 i n). He pointed out thatx y if and only if there is joinz such thatx z andy z. This paper gives an effective characterization of this equivalence for the Lambeck calculiL andLP, and for the multiplicative fragments of Girard's and Yetter's linear logics. Moreover, for the non-directed Lambek calculusLP and the multiplicative fragment of Girard's linear logic, we present linear time algorithms deciding whether two types are equal, and finding a join for them if they are.
We present a game semantics for Linear Logic, in which formulas denote games and proofs denote winning strategies. We show that our semantics yields a categorical model of Linear Logic and prove full completeness for Multiplicative Linear Logic with the MIX rule: every winning strategy is the denotation of a unique cut-free proof net. A key role is played by the notion of history-free strategy; strong connections are made between history-free strategies and the Geometry of Interaction. Our semantics incorporates a natural notion of polarity, leading to a refined treatment of the additives. We make comparisons with related work by Joyal, Blass, et al.
We provide a general investigation of Logic in which the notion of a simple consequence relation is taken to be fundamental. Our notion is more general than the usual one since we give up monotonicity and use multisets rather than sets. We use our notion for characterizing several known logics (including Linear Logic and non-monotonic logics) and for a general, semantics-independent classi cation of standard connectives via equations on consequence relations (these include Girard's \multiplicatives" and \additives"). We next investigate the standard methods for uniformly representing consequence relations: Hilbert type, Natural Deduction and Gentzen type. The advantages and disadvantages of using each system and what should be taken as..
No categories
This article presents an analysis of Gödel's dialectica interpretation via a refinement of intuitionistic logic known as linear logic. Linear logic comes naturally into the picture once one observes that the structural rule of contraction is the main cause of the lack of symmetry in Gödel's interpretation. We use the fact that the dialectica interpretation of intuitionistic logic can be viewed as a composition of Girard's embedding of intuitionistic logic into linear logic followed by de Paiva's dialectica interpretation of linear logic. We then investigate the various properties of the dialectica interpretation, such as the characterisation theorem, and variants of Gödel's interpretation within the linear logic context. The role of contraction in extensions to classical logic, arithmetic and analysis is also discussed.
In this paper, I discuss the analysis of logic in the pragmatic approach recently proposed by Brandom. I consider different consequence relations, formalized by classical, intuitionistic and linear logic, and I will argue that the formal theory developed by Brandom, even if provides powerful foundational insights on the relationship between logic and discursive practices, cannot account for important reasoning patterns represented by non-monotonic or resource-sensitive inferences. Then, I will present an incompatibility semantics in the framework of linear logic which allow to refine Brandom’s concept of defeasible inference and to account for those non-monotonic and relevant inferences that are expressible in linear logic. Moreover, I will suggest an interpretation of discursive practices based on an abstract notion of agreement on what counts as a reason which is deeply connected with linear logic semantics.
Linear Logic is a branch of proof theory which provides refined tools for the study of the computational aspects of proofs. These tools include a duality-based categorical semantics, an intrinsic graphical representation of proofs, the introduction of well-behaved non-commutative logical connectives, and the concepts of polarity and focalisation. These various aspects are illustrated here through introductory tutorials as well as more specialised contributions, with a particular emphasis on applications to computer science: denotational semantics, lambda-calculus, logic programming and concurrency theory. The volume is rounded-off by two invited contributions on new topics rooted in recent developments of linear logic. The book derives from a summer school that was the climax of the EU Training and Mobility of Researchers project 'Linear Logic in Computer Science'. It is an excellent introduction to some of the most active research topics in the area.
In a previous work with Antonio Bucciarelli, we introduced indexed linear logic as a tool for studying and enlarging the denotational semantics of linear logic. In particular, we showed how to define new denotational models of linear logic using symmetric product phase models (truth-value models) of indexed linear logic. We present here a strict extension of indexed linear logic for which symmetric product phase spaces provide a complete semantics. We study the connection between this new system and indexed linear logic.
In this paper we 1. provide a natural deduction system for full first-order linear logic, 2. introduce Curry-Howard-style terms for this version of linear logic, 3. extend the notion of substitution of Curry-Howard terms for term variables, 4. define the reduction rules for the Curry-Howard terms and 5. outline a proof of the strong normalization for the full system of linear logic using a development of Girard's candidates for reducibility, thereby providing an alternative to Girard's proof using proof-nets.
No categories
Linear logic, introduced in 1986 by J.-Y. Girard, is based upon a fine grain analysis of the main proof-theoretical notions of logic. The subject develops along the lines of denotational semantics, proof nets and the geometry of interaction. Its basic dynamical nature has attracted computer scientists, and various promising connections have been made in the areas of optimal program execution, interaction nets and knowledge representation. This book is the refereed proceedings of the first international meeting on linear logic held at Cornell University, in June 1993. Survey papers devoted to specific areas of linear logic, as well as an extensive general introduction to the subject by J.-Y. Girard, have been added, so as to make this book a valuable tool both for the beginner and for the advanced researcher.
In this paper we 1. provide a natural deduction system for full first-order linear logic, 2. introduce Curry-Howard-style terms for this version of linear logic, 3. extend the notion of substitution of Curry-Howard terms for term variables, 4. define the reduction rules for the Curry-Howard terms and 5. outline a proof of the strong normalization for the full system of linear logic using a development of Girard's candidates for reducibility, thereby providing an alternative to Girard's proof using proof-nets.
Discussion of Arnon Avron, The Semantics and Proof Theory of Linear Logic
|
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.

