Illative combinatory logic consists of the theory of combinators or lambda calculus extended by extra constants (and corresponding axioms and rules) intended to capture inference. The paper considers systems of illative combinatory logic that are sound for first-order propositional and predicate calculus. The interpretation from ordinary logic into the illative systems can be done in two ways: following the propositions-as-types paradigm, in which derivations become combinators or, in a more direct way, in which derivations are not translated. Both translations are (...) closely related in a canonical way. The two direct translations turn out to be complete. The paper fulfills the program of Church [1932], [1933] and Curry [1930] to base logic on a consistent system of λ-terms or combinators. Hitherto this program had failed because systems of ICL were either too weak (to provide a sound interpretation) or too strong (sometimes even inconsistent). (shrink)

Illative combinatory logic consists of the theory of combinators or lambda calculus extended by extra constants (and corresponding axioms and rules) intended to capture inference. The paper considers 4 systems of illative combinatory logic that are sound for first-order propositional and predicate calculus. The interpretation from ordinary logic into the illative systems can be done in two ways: following the propositions-as-types paradigm, in which derivations become combinators, or in a more direct way, in which derivations are not translated. Both translations (...) are closely related in a canonical way. In a preceding paper, Barendregt, Bunder and Dekkers, 1993, we proved completeness of the two direct translations. In the present paper we prove completeness of the two indirect translations by showing that the corresponding illative systems are conservative over the two systems for the direct translations. In another version, DBB (1997), we shall give a more direct completeness proof. These papers fulfill the program of Church and Curry to base logic on a consistent system of $\lambda$ -terms or combinators. Hitherto this program had failed because systems of ICL were either too weak (to provide a sound interpretation) or too strong (sometimes even inconsistent). (shrink)

Pure Type Systems, PTSs, introduced as a generalisation of the type systems of Barendregt's lambda-cube, provide a foundation for actual proof assistants, aiming at the mechanic verification of formal proofs. In this paper we consider simplifications of some of the rules of PTSs. This is of independent interest for PTSs as this produces more flexible PTS-like systems, but it will also help, in a later paper, to bridge the gap between PTSs and systems of Illative Combinatory Logic. First we consider (...) a simplification of the start and weakening rules of PTSs, which allows contexts to be sets of statements, and a generalisation of the conversion rule. The resulting Set-modified PTSs or SPTSs, though essentially equivalent to PTSs, are closer to standard logical systems. A simplification of the abstraction rule results in Abstraction-modified PTSs or APTSs. These turn out to be equivalent to standard PTSs if and only if a condition (*) holds. Finally we consider SAPTSs which have both modifications. (shrink)

Illative combinatory logic consists of the theory of combinators or lambda calculus extended by extra constants (and corresponding axioms and rules) intended to capture inference. In a preceding paper, [2], we considered 4 systems of illative combinatory logic that are sound for first order intuitionistic propositional and predicate logic. The interpretation from ordinary logic into the illative systems can be done in two ways: following the propositions-as-types paradigm, in which derivations become combinators, or in a more direct way, in which (...) derivations are not translated. Both translations are closely related in a canonical way. In the cited paper we proved completeness of the two direct translations. In the present paper we prove that also the two indirect translations are complete. These proofs are direct whereas in another version, [3], we proved completeness by showing that the two corresponding illative systems are conservative over the two systems for the direct translations. Moreover we shall prove that one of the systems is also complete for predicate calculus with higher type functions. (shrink)

Because the main difference between combinatory weak equality and λβ-equality is that the rule \begin{equation*}\tag{\xi} X = Y \vdash \lambda x.X = \lambda x.Y\end{equation*} is valid for the latter but not the former, it is easy to assume that another way of defining combinatory β-equality is to add rule (ξ) to the postulates for weak equality. However, to make this true, one must choose the definition of combinatory abstraction in (ξ) very carefully. If one tries to use one of the (...) more common abstraction algorithms, the result will be an equality, = ξ , that is either equivalent to βη-equality (and so strictly stronger than β-equality) or else strictly weaker than β-equality. This paper will study the relations = ξ for several commonly used abstraction algorithms, distinguish between them, and axiomatize them. (shrink)

Chakraborty and Banerjee have introduced a rough consequence logic based on the modal logic S5. This paper shows that rough consequence logics, with many of the same properties, can be based on modal logics as weak as K, with a simpler formulation than that of Chakraborty and Banerjee. Also provided are decision procedures for the rough consequence logics and equivalences and independence relations between various systems S and the rough consequence logics, based on them. It also shows that each logic, (...) based on such an S, is theorem equivalent, but not necessarily equivalent, to the modal logic M-S. The paper also shows that rough consequence logic, which was designed to handle rough equality, is somewhat limited for that purpose. (shrink)

Chakraborty and Banerjee have introduced a rough consequence logic based on the modal logic S5. This paper shows that rough consequence logics, with many of the same properties, can be based on modal logics as weak as K, with a simpler formulation than that of Chakraborty and Banerjee. Also provided are decision procedures for the rough consequence logics and equivalences and independence relations between various systems S and the rough consequence logics, based on them. It also shows that each logic, (...) based on such an S, is theorem equivalent, but not necessarily equivalent, to the modal logic M-S. The paper also shows that rough consequence logic, which was designed to handle rough equality, is somewhat limited for that purpose. (shrink)

It is well known that the simple types of closed lambda terms or combinators can be interpreted as the theorems of intuitionistic implicational logic . Venneri, using an equivalence between the intersection type system for lambda calculus, without the universal type ω, TA∧λ, and a similar system for combinators, TA∧, shows that the types of TA∧λ are the theorems of a Hilbert-style sublogic of the → ∧ fragment of H→.In this paper we fill a gap in the equivalence proof and (...) introduce a new system of intersection types for lambda calculus that is weaker than TA∧λ, but has the same set of types. The new system has the advantage that the logic of types can be obtained directly from the rules - just as H→ can be obtained from simple type theory. (shrink)

Illative combinatory logic consists of the theory of combinators or lambda calculus extended by extra constants intended to capture inference. In a preceding paper, [2], we considered 4 systems of illative combinatory logic that are sound for first order intuitionistic propositional and predicate logic. The interpretation from ordinary logic into the illative systems can be done in two ways: following the propositions-as-types paradigm, in which derivations become combinators, or in a more direct way, in which derivations are not translated. Both (...) translations are closely related in a canonical way. In the cited paper we proved completeness of the two direct translations. In the present paper we prove that also the two indirect translations are complete. These proofs are direct whereas in another version, [3], we proved completeness by showing that the two corresponding illative systems are conservative over the two systems for the direct translations. Moreover we shall prove that one of the systems is also complete for predicate calculus with higher type functions. (shrink)