This paper constructs a cirquent calculus system and proves its soundness and completeness with respect to the semantics of computability logic. The logical vocabulary of the system consists of negation \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\neg}}$$\end{document}, parallel conjunction \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\wedge}}$$\end{document}, parallel disjunction \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\vee}}$$\end{document}, branching recurrence ⫰, and branching corecurrence ⫯. The article is published in two parts, with (the previous) (...) Part I containing preliminaries and a soundness proof, and (the present) Part II containing a completeness proof. (shrink)

This paper constructs a cirquent calculus system and proves its soundness and completeness with respect to the semantics of computability logic. The logical vocabulary of the system consists of negation ${\neg}$ , parallel conjunction ${\wedge}$ , parallel disjunction ${\vee}$ , branching recurrence ⫰, and branching corecurrence ⫯. The article is published in two parts, with (the present) Part I containing preliminaries and a soundness proof, and (the forthcoming) Part II containing a completeness proof.

This work is an attempt to lay foundations for a theory of interactive computation and bring logic and theory of computing closer together. It semantically introduces a logic of computability and sets a program for studying various aspects of that logic. The intuitive notion of computational problems is formalized as a certain new, procedural-rule-free sort of games between the machine and the environment, and computability is understood as existence of an interactive Turing machine that wins the game against any possible (...) environment. The formalism used as a specification language for computational problems, called the universal language, is a non-disjoint union of the formalisms of classical, intuitionistic and linear logics, with logical operators interpreted as certain—most basic and natural—operations on problems. Validity of a formula is understood as being “always computable”, and the set of all valid formulas is called the universal logic. The name “universal” is related to the potential of this logic to integrate, on the basis of one semantics, classical, intuitionistic and linear logics, with their seemingly unrelated or even antagonistic philosophies. In particular, the classical notion of truth turns out to be nothing but computability restricted to the formulas of the classical fragment of the universal language, which makes classical logic a natural syntactic fragment of the universal logic. The same appears to be the case for intuitionistic and linear logics . Unlike classical logic, these two do not have a good concept of truth, and the notion of computability restricted to the corresponding two fragments of the universal language, based on the intuitions that it formalizes, can well qualify as “intuitionistic truth” and “linear-logic truth”. The paper also provides illustrations of potential applications of the universal logic in knowledgebase, resourcebase and planning systems, as well as constructive applied theories. The author has tried to make this article easy to read. It is fully self-contained and can be understood without any specialized knowledge of any particular subfield of logic or computer science. (shrink)

Within the program of finding axiomatizations for various parts of computability logic, it was proven earlier that the logic of interactive Turing reduction is exactly the implicative fragment of Heyting’s intuitionistic calculus. That sort of reduction permits unlimited reusage of the computational resource represented by the antecedent. An at least equally basic and natural sort of algorithmic reduction, however, is the one that does not allow such reusage. The present article shows that turning the logic of the first sort of (...) reduction into the logic of the second sort of reduction takes nothing more than just deleting the contraction rule from its Gentzen-style axiomatization. The first sort of interactive reduction is also shown to come in three natural versions. While those three versions are very different from each other, their logical behaviors turn out to be indistinguishable, with that common behavior being precisely captured by implicative intuitionistic logic. Among the other contributions of the present article is an informal introduction of a series of new — finite and bounded — versions of recurrence operations and the associated reduction operations. (shrink)

The paper gives a soundness and completeness proof for the implicative fragment of intuitionistic calculus with respect to the semantics of computability logic, which understands intuitionistic implication as interactive algorithmic reduction. This concept — more precisely, the associated concept of reducibility — is a generalization of Turing reducibility from the traditional, input/output sorts of problems to computational tasks of arbitrary degrees of interactivity.