The description of resources in game semantics has never achieved the simplicity and precision of linear logic, because of the misleading conception that linear logic is more primitive than game semantics. Here, we defend the opposite view, and thus advocate that game semantics is conceptually more primitive than linear logic. This revised point of view leads us to introduce tensor logic, a primitive variant of linear logic where negation is not involutive. After formulating its categorical semantics, we interpret tensor logic (...) in a model based on Conway games equipped with a notion of payoff, in order to reflect the various resource policies of the logic: linear, affine, relevant or exponential. (shrink)

Game semantics extends the Curry–Howard isomorphism to a three-way correspondence: proofs, programs, strategies. But the universe of strategies goes beyond intuitionistic logics and lambda calculus, to capture stateful programs. In this paper we describe a logical counterpart to this extension, in which proofs denote such strategies. The system is expressive: it contains all of the connectives of Intuitionistic Linear Logic, and first-order quantification. Use of Lairdʼs sequoid operator allows proofs with imperative behaviour to be expressed. Thus, we can embed first-order (...) Intuitionistic Linear Logic into this system, Polarized Linear Logic, and an imperative total programming language.The proof system has a tight connection with a simple game model, where games are forests of plays. Formulas are modelled as games, and proofs as history-sensitive winning strategies. We provide a strong full completeness result with respect to this model: each finitary strategy is the denotation of a unique analytic proof. Infinite strategies correspond to analytic proofs that are infinitely deep. Thus, we can normalise proofs, via the semantics. (shrink)