Cirquent calculus is a novel proof theory permitting component-sharing between logical expressions. Using it, the predecessor article ‘Elementary-base cirquent calculus I: Parallel and choice connectives’ built the sound and complete axiomatization $\textbf{CL16}$ of a propositional fragment of computability logic. The atoms of the language of $\textbf{CL16}$ represent elementary, i.e. moveless, games and the logical vocabulary consists of negation, parallel connectives and choice connectives. The present paper constructs the first-order version $\textbf{CL17}$ of $\textbf{CL16}$, also enjoying soundness and completeness. The language of (...) $\textbf{CL17}$ augments that of $\textbf{CL16}$ by including choice quantifiers. Unlike classical predicate calculus, $\textbf{CL17}$ turns out to be decidable. (shrink)

This paper shows that the basic logic induced by the parallel recurrence $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ of computability logic (i.e., the one in the signature $\{\neg,$\wedge$,\vee,\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}},\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {0.12cm}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\vee$}\hspace {-3.6pt}\raisebox {0.02cm}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}\}$ ) is a proper superset of the basic logic induced by the branching recurrence $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ (i.e., the one in the signature $\{\neg,$\wedge$,\vee,\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox (...) {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}},\mbox {\raisebox {0.12cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.115cm}\raisebox {0.02cm}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}\}$ ). The latter is known to be precisely captured by the cirquent calculus system CL15 , conjectured by Japaridze to remain sound—but not complete—with $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ instead of $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ . The present result is obtained by positively verifying that conjecture. A secondary result of the paper is showing that $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ is strictly weaker than $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ in the sense that, while $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}F$ logically implies $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}F$ , the reverse does not hold. (shrink)