Reviewed Works:Gaisi Takeuti, Proof Theory.Georg Kreisel, Proof Theory: Some Personal Recollections.Wolfram Pohlers, Contributions of the Schutte School in Munich to Proof Theory.Stephen G. Simpson, Subsystems of $\mathbf{Z}_2$ and Reverse Mathematics.Solomon Feferman, Proof Theory: A Personal Report.

Whether assent ("acceptance") and dissent ("rejection") are thought of as speech acts or as propositional attitudes, the leading idea of rejectivism is that a grasp of the distinction between them is prior to our understanding of negation as a sentence operator, this operator then being explicable as applying to A to yield something assent to which is tantamount to dissent from A. Widely thought to have been refuted by an argument of Frege's, rejectivism has undergone something of a revival in (...) recent years, especially in writings by Huw Price and Timothy Smiley. While agreeing that Frege's argument does not refute the position, we shall air some philosophical qualms about it in Section 5, after a thorough examination of the formal issues in Sections 1-4. This discussion draws on - and seeks to draw attention to - some pertinent work of Kent Bendall in the 1970s. (shrink)

In this short paper I note that a key metatheorem does not hold for the bilateralist inferential framework: harmony does not entail consistency. I conclude that the requirement of harmony will not suffice for a bilateralist to maintain a proof theoretic account of classical logic. I conclude that a proof theoretic account of meaning based on the bilateralist framework has no natural way of distinguishing legitimate definitional inference rules from illegitimate ones (such as those for tonk). Finally, as an appendix (...) to the main argument, I propose an alternative non-bilateral formal solution to the problem of providing a proof-theoretic account of classical logic. (shrink)

The paper suggests a revision of the notion of harmony, a major necessary condition in proof-theoretic semantics for a natural-deduction proof-system to qualify as meaning conferring, when moving to a bilateral proof-system. The latter considers both forces of assertion and denial as primitive, and is applied here to positive logics, lacking negation altogether. It is suggested that in addition to the balance between (positive) introduction and elimination rules traditionally imposed by harmony, a balance should be imposed also on: (i) negative (...) introduction and elimination rules, and (ii) positive and negative introduction rules. The paper suggests a proof-theoretical definition of duality (not referring to truthtables), using which double harmony is defined. The paper proves that in a doubly-harmonious system, the coordination rule, typical to bilateral systems, is admissible. (shrink)

The paper suggests a revision of the notion of harmony, a major necessary condition in proof-theoretic semantics for a natural-deduction proof-system to qualify as meaning conferring, when moving to a bilateral proof-system. The latter considers both forces of assertion and denial as primitive, and is applied here to positive logics, lacking negation altogether. It is suggested that in addition to the balance between introduction and elimination rules traditionally imposed by harmony, a balance should be imposed also on: negative introduction and (...) elimination rules, and positive and negative introduction rules. The paper suggests a proof-theoretical definition of duality, using which double harmony is defined. The paper proves that in a doubly-harmonious system, the coordination rule, typical to bilateral systems, is admissible. (shrink)

In "'Yes" and "No'" (2000), Ian Rumfitt proposed bilateralism--a use-based account of the logical words, according to which the sense of a sentence is determined by the conditions under which it is asserted and denied. One of Rumfitt's key claims is that bilateralism can provide a justification of classical logic. This paper raises a techical problem for Rumfitt's proposal, one that seems to undermine the bilateralist programme.

The idea of an ?inversion principle?, and the name itself, originated in the work of Paul Lorenzen in the 1950s, as a method to generate new admissible rules within a certain syntactic context. Some fifteen years later, the idea was taken up by Dag Prawitz to devise a strategy of normalization for natural deduction calculi (this being an analogue of Gentzen's cut-elimination theorem for sequent calculi). Later, Prawitz used the inversion principle again, attributing it with a semantic role. Still working (...) in natural deduction calculi, he formulated a general type of schematic introduction rules to be matched ? thanks to the idea supporting the inversion principle ? by a corresponding general schematic Elimination rule. This was an attempt to provide a solution to the problem suggested by the often quoted note of Gentzen. According to Gentzen ?it should be possible to display the elimination rules as unique functions of the corresponding introduction rules on the basis of certain requirements?. Many people have since worked on this topic, which can be appropriately seen as the birthplace of what are now referred to as ?general elimination rules?, recently studied thoroughly by Sara Negri and Jan von Plato. In this study, we retrace the main threads of this chapter of proof-theoretical investigation, using Lorenzen's original framework as a general guide. (shrink)