Until not too many years ago, all logics except classical logic (and, perhaps, intuitionistic logic too) were considered to be things esoteric. Today this state of a airs seems to have completely been changed. There is a growing interest in many types of nonclassical logics: modal and temporal logics, substructural logics, paraconsistent logics, non-monotonic logics { the list is long. The diversity of systems that have been proposed and studied is so great that a need is felt by many researchers (...) to try to put some order in the present logical jungle. Thus Cl91], Ep90] and Wo88] are three recent books in which an attempt is made to develop a general theoretical framework for the study of logics. On the more pragmatic side, several systems have been developed with the goal of providing a computerized logical framework in which many di erent logical systems can be implemented in a uniform way. An example is the Edinburgh LF( HHP91]). (shrink)

We present a single sequent calculus common to classical, intuitionistic and linear logics. The main novelty is that classical, intuitionistic and linear logics appear as fragments, i.e. as particular classes of formulas and sequents. For instance, a proof of an intuitionistic formula A may use classical or linear lemmas without any restriction: but after cut-elimination the proof of A is wholly intuitionistic, what is superficially achieved by the subformula property and more deeply by a very careful treatment of structural rules. (...) This approach is radically different from the one that consists in “changing the rule of the game” when we want to change logic, e.g. pass from one style of sequent to another: here, there is only one logic, which—depending on its use—may appear classical, intuitionistic or linear. (shrink)

Craig interpolation theorem implies that the derivability of X,X′ Y′ implies existence of an interpolant I in the common language of X and X′ Y′ such that both X I and I,X′ Y′ are derivable. For classical logic this extends to X,X′ Y,Y′, but for intuitionistic logic there are counterexamples. We present a version true for intuitionistic propositional logic, and more complicated version for the predicate case.

We perform a proof-theoretical investigation of two modal predicate logics: global intuitionistic logic GI and global intuitionistic fuzzy logic GIF. These logics were introduced by Takeuti and Titani to formulate an intuitionistic set theory and an intuitionistic fuzzy set theory together with their metatheories. Here we define analytic Gentzen style calculi for GI and GIF. Among other things, these calculi allows one to prove Herbrand’s theorem for suitable fragments of GI and GIF.

The language of the basic logic of proofs extends the usual propositional language by forming sentences of the sort x is a proof of F for any sentence F. In this paper a complete axiomatization for the basic logic of proofs in Heyting Arithmetic HA was found.

Hypersequents are finite sets of ordinary sequents. We show that multiple-conclusion sequents and single-conclusion hypersequents represent two different natural methods of switching from a single-conclusion calculus to a multiple-conclusion one. The use of multiple-conclusion sequents corresponds to using a multiplicative disjunction, while the use of single-conclusion hypersequents corresponds to using an additive one. Moreover: each of the two methods is usually based on a different natural semantic idea and accordingly leads to a different class of algebraic structures. In the cases (...) we consider here the use of multiple-conclusion sequents corresponds to focusing the attention on structures in which there is a full symmetry between the sets of designated and antidesignated elements. The use of single-conclusion hypersequents, on the other hand, corresponds to the use of structures in which all elements except one are designated. Not surprisingly, the use of multiple-conclusion hypersequents corresponds to the use of structures which are both symmetrical and with a single nondesignated element. (shrink)