We consider the following problem: Given a proof of the Skolemization of a formula F, what is the length of the shortest proof of F? For the restriction of this question to cut-free proofs we prove corresponding exponential upper and lower bounds.

We define a generalization of the first-order cut-elimination method CERES to higher-order logic. At the core of lies the computation of an set of sequents from a proof π of a sequent S. A refutation of in a higher-order resolution calculus can be used to transform cut-free parts of π into a cut-free proof of S. An example illustrates the method and shows that can produce meaningful cut-free proofs in mathematics that traditional cut-elimination methods cannot reach.

This open access book is a superb collection of some fifteen chapters inspired by Schroeder-Heister's groundbreaking work, written by leading experts in the field, plus an extensive autobiography and comments on the various contributions by Schroeder-Heister himself. For several decades, Peter Schroeder-Heister has been a central figure in proof-theoretic semantics, a field of study situated at the interface of logic, theoretical computer science, natural-language semantics, and the philosophy of language. -/- The chapters of which this book is composed discuss the (...) subject from a rich variety of angles, including the history of logic, the proper interpretation of logical validity, natural deduction rules, the notions of harmony and of synonymy, the structure of proofs, the logical status of equality, intentional phenomena, and the proof theory of second-order arithmetic. All chapters relate directly to questions that have driven Schroeder-Heister's own research agenda and to which he has made seminal contributions. The extensive autobiographical chapter not only provides a fascinating overview of Schroeder-Heister's career and the evolution of his academic interests but also constitutes a contribution to the recent history of logic in its own right, painting an intriguing picture of the philosophical, logical, and mathematical institutional landscape in Germany and elsewhere since the early 1970s. The papers collected in this book are illuminatingly put into a unified perspective by Schroeder-Heister's comments at the end of the book. Both graduate students and established researchers in the field will find this book an excellent resource for future work in proof-theoretic semantics and related areas. (shrink)

The topics of structural proof theory and logic programming have influenced each other for more than three decades. Proof theory has contributed the notion of sequent calculus, linear logic, and higher-order quantification. Logic programming has introduced new normal forms of proofs and forced the examination of logic-based approaches to the treatment of bindings. As a result, proof theory has responded by developing an approach to proof search based on focused proof systems in which introduction rules are organized into two alternating (...) phases of rule application. Since the logic programming community can generate many examples and many design goals, the close connections with proof theory have helped to keep proof theory relevant to the general topic of computational logic. (shrink)

Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, it should be possible to check the correctness of a net (...) in polynomial time, every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness.Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In Richard McKinley [22], the author presented a calculus of proof nets satisfying and ; the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of . That sequent calculus, called LK⁎LK⁎ in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper [22]), we give a full proof of for expansion nets with respect to LK⁎LK⁎, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets – this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria. (shrink)

Gentzen’s sequent calculi LK and LJ are landmark proof systems. They identify the structural rules of weakening and contraction as notable inference rules, and they allow for an elegant statement and proof of both cut elimination and consistency for classical and intuitionistic logics. Among the undesirable features of those sequent calculi is that their inferences rules are low-level and frequently permute over each other. As a result, large-scale structures within sequent calculus proofs are hard to identify. In this paper, we (...) present a different approach to designing a sequent calculus for classical logic. Starting with Gentzen’s LK proof system, we examine the proof search meaning of his inference rules and classify those rules as involving either don’t care nondeterminism or don’t know nondeterminism. Based on that classification, we design the focused proof system LKF in which inference rules belong to one of two phases of proof construction depending on which flavor of nondeterminism they involve. We then prove that the cut rule and the general form of the initial rule are admissible in LKF. Finally, by showing that the inference rules for LK are all admissible in LKF, we can give a relative completeness proof for LKF provability with respect to LK provability. We shall also apply these properties of the LKF proof system to establish other meta-theoretic properties of classical logic, including Herbrand’s theorem. (shrink)

We investigate the development of terms during cut-elimination in first-order logic and Peano arithmetic for proofs of existential formulas. The form of witness terms in cut-free proofs is characterized in terms of structured combinations of basic substitutions. Based on this result, a regular tree grammar computing witness terms is given and a class of proofs is shown to have only elementary cut-elimination.

We formulate Hilbert’s epsilon calculus in the context of expansion proofs. This leads to a simplified proof of the epsilon theorems by disposing of the need for prenexification, Skolemisation, and their respective inverse transformations. We observe that the natural notion of cut in the epsilon calculus is associative.

Classical proof forests are a proof formalism for first-order classical logic based on Herbrand’s Theorem and backtracking games in the style of Coquand. First described by Miller in a cut-free setting as an economical representation of first-order and higher-order classical proof, defining features of the forests are a strict focus on witnessing terms for quantifiers and the absence of inessential structure, or ‘bureaucracy’.This paper presents classical proof forests as a graphical proof formalism and investigates the possibility of composing forests by (...) cut-elimination. Cut-reduction steps take the form of a local rewrite relation that arises from the structure of the forests in a natural way. Yet reductions, which are significantly different from those of the sequent calculus, are combinatorially intricate and do not exclude the possibility of infinite reduction traces, of which an example is given.Cut-elimination, in the form of a weak normalisation theorem, is obtained using a modified version of the rewrite relation inspired by the game-theoretic interpretation of the forests. It is conjectured that the modified reduction relation is, in fact, strongly normalising. (shrink)