As a celebration of theTractatus100th anniversary it might be worth revisiting its relation to the later writings. From the former to the latter, David Pears recalls that “everyone is aware of the holistic character of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, but it is not so well known that it was already beginning to establish itself in theTractatus” (The False Prison, 1987). From the latter to the former, Stephen Hilmy’s (The Later Wittgenstein, 1987) extensive study of theNachlasshas helped removing classical misconceptions such as (...) Hintikka’s claim that “Wittgenstein in thePhilosophical Investigationsalmost completely gave up the calculus analogy.” Hilmy points out that even in theInvestigationsone finds the use of the calculus/game paradigm to the understanding of language, such as “in operating with the word” (Part I, §559) and “it plays a different part in the calculus”. Hilmy also quotes from a late (1946) unpublished manuscript (MS 130) “this sentence has use in the calculus of language”, which seems to be compatible with “asking whether and how a proposition can be verified is only a particular way of asking ‘How do you mean?’” Central in this back and forth there is an aspect which seems to deserve attention in the discussion of a semantics for the language of mathematics which might be based on (normalisation of) proofs and/or Hintikka/Lorenzen game-dialogue: the explication of consequences. Such a discussion is substantially supported by the use of the open and searchableThe Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen. These findings are framed within the discussion of the meaning of logical constants in the context of natural deduction style rules of inference. (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)

The formulas-as-types isomorphism tells us that every proof and theorem, in the intuitionistic implicational logic $H_\rightarrow$, corresponds to a lambda term or combinator and its type. The algorithms of Bunder very efficiently find a lambda term inhabitant, if any, of any given type of $H_\rightarrow$ and of many of its subsystems. In most cases the search procedure has a simple bound based roughly on the length of the formula involved. Computer implementations of some of these procedures were done in Dekker. (...) In this paper we extend these methods to full classical propositional logic as well as to its various subsystems. This extension has partly been implemented by Oostdijk. (shrink)

Proofs from assumptions are amongst the most fundamental reasoning techniques. Yet the precise nature of assumptions is still an open topic. One of the most prominent conceptions is the placeholder view of assumptions generally associated with natural deduction for intuitionistic propositional logic. It views assumptions essentially as holes in proofs, either to be filled with closed proofs of the corresponding propositions via substitution or withdrawn as a side effect of some rule, thus in effect making them an auxiliary notion subservient (...) to proper propositions. The Curry–Howard correspondence is typically viewed as a formal counterpart of this conception. I will argue against this position and show that even though the Curry–Howard correspondence typically accommodates the placeholder view of assumptions, it is rather a matter of choice, not a necessity, and that another more assumption-friendly view can be adopted. (shrink)

We present a syntactical cut-elimination proof for an extended sequent calculus covering the classical modal logics in the \(\mathsf{K}\), \(\mathsf{D}\), \(\mathsf{T}\), \(\mathsf{K4}\), \(\mathsf{D4}\) and \(\mathsf{S4}\) spectrum. We design the systems uniformly since they all share the same set of rules. Different logics are obtained by “tuning” a single parameter, namely a constraint on the applicability of the cut rule and on the (left and right, respectively) rules for \(\Box\) and \(\Diamond\). Starting points for this research are 2-sequents and indexed-based calculi (...) (sequents and tableaux). By extending and modifying existing proposals, we show how to achieve a syntactical proof of the cut-elimination theorem that is as close as possible to the one for first-order classical logic. In doing this, we implicitly show how small is the proof-theoretical distance between classical logic and the systems under consideration. (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.