The axiomatic presentation of modal systems and the standard formulations of natural deduction and sequent calculus for modal logic are reviewed, together with the difficulties that emerge with these approaches. Generalizations of standard proof systems are then presented. These include, among others, display calculi, hypersequents, and labelled systems, with the latter surveyed from a closer perspective.

Starting from a proof-theoretic perspective, where meaning is determined by the inference rules governing logical operators, in this paper we primarily aim at developing a proof-theoretic alternative to the model-theoretic meaning-invariant logical pluralism discussed in Beall and Restall. We will also outline how this framework can be easily extended to include a form of meaning-variant logical pluralism. In this respect, the framework developed in this paper—which we label two-level proof-theoretic pluralism—is much broader in scope than the one discussed in Beall (...) and Restall’s book. (shrink)

This paper gives a Gentzen-style proof of the consistency of Heyting arithmetic in an intuitionistic sequent calculus with explicit rules of weakening, contraction and cut. The reductions of the proof, which transform derivations of a contradiction into less complex derivations, are based on a method for direct cut-elimination without the use of multicut. This method treats contractions by tracing up from contracted cut formulas to the places in the derivation where each occurrence was first introduced. Thereby, Gentzen’s heightline argument, which (...) introduces additional cuts on contracted compound cut formulas, is avoided. To show termination of the reduction procedure an ordinal assignment based on techniques of Howard for Gödel’s T is used. (shrink)

A new set of conversions for derivations in the system of sequents for intuitionistic predicate logic will be defined. These conversions will be some modifications of Zucker's conversions from the system of sequents from [11], which will have the following characteristics: (1) these conversions will be sufficient for transforming a derivation into a cut-free one, and (2) in the natural deduction the image of each of these conversions will be either in the set of conversions for normalization procedure, or an (...) identity of derivations. This will be used to give a new proof of the normalization theorem for natural deduction, as a consequence of the cut-elimination theorem for the system of sequents. (shrink)

We present a syntactic proof of cut-elimination for weak Grzegorczyk logic Go. The logic has a syntactically similar axiomatisation to Gödel–Löb logic GL (provability logic) and Grzegorczyk’s logic Grz. Semantically, GL can be viewed as the irreflexive counterpart of Go, and Grz can be viewed as the reflexive counterpart of Go. Although proofs of syntactic cut-elimination for GL and Grz have appeared in the literature, this is the first proof of syntactic cut-elimination for Go. The proof is technically interesting, requiring (...) a deeper analysis of the derivation structures than the proofs for GL and Grz. New transformations generalising the transformations for GL and Grz are developed here. (shrink)

Gentzen's systems of natural deduction and sequent calculus were byproducts in his program of proving the consistency of arithmetic and analysis. It is suggested that the central component in his results on logical calculi was the use of a tree form for derivations. It allows the composition of derivations and the permutation of the order of application of rules, with a full control over the structure of derivations as a result. Recently found documents shed new light on the discovery of (...) these calculi. In particular, Gentzen set up five different forms of natural calculi and gave a detailed proof of normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. An early handwritten manuscript of his thesis shows that a direct translation from natural deduction to the axiomatic logic of Hilbert and Ackermann was, in addition to the influence of Paul Hertz, the second component in the discovery of sequent calculus. A system intermediate between the sequent calculus LI and axiomatic logic, denoted LIG in unpublished sources, is implicit in Gentzen's published thesis of 1934—35. The calculus has half rules, half “groundsequents,” and does not allow full cut elimination. Nevertheless, a translation from LI to LIG in the published thesis gives a subformula property for a complete class of derivations in LIG. After the thesis, Gentzen continued to work on variants of sequent calculi for ten more years, in the hope to find a consistency proof for arithmetic within an intuitionistic calculus. (shrink)

A sequent calculus is given in which the management of weakening and contraction is organized as in natural deduction. The latter has no explicit weakening or contraction, but vacuous and multiple discharges in rules that discharge assumptions. A comparison to natural deduction is given through translation of derivations between the two systems. It is proved that if a cut formula is never principal in a derivation leading to the right premiss of cut, it is a subformula of the conclusion. Therefore (...) it is sufficient to eliminate those cuts that correspond to detour and permutation conversions in natural deduction. (shrink)

In the sequent systems for exponential-free linear logic and BCK logic a procedure of elimination of maximum cuts, cuts which correspond to maximum segments from natural deduction derivations, will be presented.

In 1983, Valentini presented a syntactic proof of cut elimination for a sequent calculus GLSV for the provability logic GL where we have added the subscript V for “Valentini”. The sequents in GLSV were built from sets, as opposed to multisets, thus avoiding an explicit contraction rule. From a syntactic point of view, it is more satisfying and formal to explicitly identify the applications of the contraction rule that are ‘hidden’ in these set based proofs of cut elimination. There is (...) often an underly ing assumption that the move to a proof of cut elimination for sequents built from multisets is easy. Recently, however, it has been claimed that Valentini’s arguments to eliminate cut do not terminate when applied to a multiset formulation of GLSV with an explicit rule of contraction. The claim has led to much confusion and various authors have sought new proofs of cut elimination for GL in a multiset setting. Here we refute this claim by placing Valentini’s arguments in a formal setting and proving cut elimination for sequents built from multisets. The formal setting is particularly important for sequents built from multisets, in order to accurately account for the interplay between the weakening and contraction rules. Furthermore, Valentini’s original proof relies on a novel induction parameter called “width” which is computed ‘globally’. It is diffi cult to verify the correctness of his induction argument based on “width”. In our formulation however, verification of the induction argument is straight forward. Finally, the multiset setting also introduces a new complication in the the case of contractions above cut when the cut formula is boxed. We deal with this using a new transformation based on Valentini’s original arguments. Finally, we show that the algorithm purporting to show the non termi nation of Valentini’s arguments is not a faithful representation of the original arguments, but is instead a transformation already known to be insufficient. (shrink)

This paper presents a sound and complete five-sided sequent calculus for first-order weak Kleene valuations which permits not only elegant representations of four logics definable on first-order weak Kleene valuations, but also admissibility of five cut rules by proof analysis.

The well-known picture that sequent derivations without cuts and normal derivations “are the same” will be changed. Sequent derivations without maximum cuts (i.e. special cuts which correspond to maximum segments from natural deduction) will be considered. It will be shown that the natural deduction image of a sequent derivation without maximum cuts is a normal derivation, and the sequent image of a normal derivation is a derivation without maximum cuts. The main consequence of that property will be that sequent derivations (...) without maximum cuts and normal derivations “are the same”. (shrink)