in die operative Logik und Mathematik Zweite Auflage Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York 1969 Paul Lorenzen o. Prof. der Philosophie an der Universitat Erlangen Geschaftsfilhrende Herausgeber: Prof. Dr. B. Eckmann Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich Prof. Dr. B. L. van cler Waerclen Mathematisches Institut der Universitat ZUrich ISBN 978-3-642-86519-0 ISBN 978-3-642-86518-3 (eBook) DOl 10.1007/978-3-642-86518-3 Aile Rechte vorbehalten. Kein Teil dieses Buches darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Springer-Verlages ubersetzt oder in irgendeiner Form vervielfaltigt werden © by Springer-Verlag Berlin· Heidelberg 1955 und 1969 (...) Softcover reprint of the hardcover 2nd edition 1969 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-76724 Titel-Nr. 5061 Vorwort zur zweiten Auflage. Fiir die Neuauflage ist der Text nur unwesentlich geandert worden. Es ist - neben der Korrektur einiger Ungenauigkeiten - vor allem die Terminologie und Symbolik an meine spateren Arbeiten angeglichen. Obwohl ich - verstandlicherweise - jetzt die Ansatze der spateren Arbeiten fiir "sachgemaBer" halte, z. B. eine Logik der Dialoge statt einer Logik der Kalkiile, die Verwendung indefiniter Quantoren statt einer expliziten Konstruktion von Sprachschichten, enthalt diese Neu­ auflage den Inhalt der 1. Auflage unverandert. Der Leser kann also einen Vergleich mit meinen spateren Arbeiten (vgl. Literaturverzeichnis) seIber durchfiihren. Mein Dank gilt wiederum dem Verlag fiir seine entgegenkommende Mitarbeit bei der Vorbereitung dieser Neuauflage. Erlangen, den 1. November I968. PAUL LORENZEN. Vorwort zur ersten Auflage. (shrink)

The standard approach to what I call “proof-theoretic semantics”, which is mainly due to Dummett and Prawitz, attempts to give a semantics of proofs by defining what counts as a valid proof. After a discussion of the general aims of proof-theoretic semantics, this paper investigates in detail various notions of proof-theoretic validity and offers certain improvements of the definitions given by Prawitz. Particular emphasis is placed on the relationship between semantic validity concepts and validity concepts used in normalization theory. It (...) is argued that these two sorts of concepts must be kept strictly apart. (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.

According to a main idea of Gentzen the meanings of the logical constants are reflected by the introduction rules in his system of natural deduction. This idea is here understood as saying roughly that a closed argument ending with an introduction is valid provided that its immediate subarguments are valid and that other closed arguments are justified to the extent that they can be brought to introduction form. One main part of the paper is devoted to the exact development of (...) this notion. Another main part of the paper is concerned with a modification of this notion as it occurs in Michael Dummett’s book The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. The two notions are compared and there is a discussion of how they fare as a foundation for a theory of meaning. It is noted that Dummett’s notion has a simpler structure, but it is argued that it is less appropriate for the foundation of a theory of meaning, because the possession of a valid argument for a sentence in Dummett’s sense is not enough to be warranted to assert the sentence. (shrink)

The idea of an ?inversion principle?, and the name itself, originated in the work of Paul Lorenzen in the 1950s, as a method to generate new admissible rules within a certain syntactic context. Some fifteen years later, the idea was taken up by Dag Prawitz to devise a strategy of normalization for natural deduction calculi (this being an analogue of Gentzen's cut-elimination theorem for sequent calculi). Later, Prawitz used the inversion principle again, attributing it with a semantic role. Still working (...) in natural deduction calculi, he formulated a general type of schematic introduction rules to be matched ? thanks to the idea supporting the inversion principle ? by a corresponding general schematic Elimination rule. This was an attempt to provide a solution to the problem suggested by the often quoted note of Gentzen. According to Gentzen ?it should be possible to display the elimination rules as unique functions of the corresponding introduction rules on the basis of certain requirements?. Many people have since worked on this topic, which can be appropriately seen as the birthplace of what are now referred to as ?general elimination rules?, recently studied thoroughly by Sara Negri and Jan von Plato. In this study, we retrace the main threads of this chapter of proof-theoretical investigation, using Lorenzen's original framework as a general guide. (shrink)