In Zielonka (1981a, 1989), I found an axiomatics for the product-free calculus L of Lambek whose only rule is the cut rule. Following Buszkowski (1987), we shall call such an axiomatics linear. It was proved that there is no finite axiomatics of that kind. In Lambek's original version of the calculus (cf. Lambek, 1958), sequent antecedents are non empty. By dropping this restriction, we obtain the variant L 0 of L. This modification, introduced in the early 1980s (see, e.g., Buszkowski, (...) 1985; Zielonka, 1981b), did not gain much popularity initially; a more common use of L 0 has only occurred within the last few years (cf. Roorda, 1991: 29). In Zielonka (1988), I established analogous results for the restriction of L 0 to sequents without left (or, equivalently, right) division. Here, I present a similar (cut-rule) axiomatics for the whole of L 0. This paper is an extended, corrected, and completed version of Zielonka (1997). Unlike in Zielonka (1997), the notion of rank of an axiom is introduced which, although inessential for the results given below, may be useful for the expected non-finite-axiomatizability proof. (shrink)

In this paper we compare grammatical inference in the context of simple and of mixed Lambek systems. Simple Lambek systems are obtained by taking the logic of residuation for a family of multiplicative connectives /,,\, together with a package of structural postulates characterizing the resource management properties of the connective.Different choices for Associativity and Commutativity yield the familiar logics NL, L, NLP, LP. Semantically, a simple Lambek system is a unimodal logic: the connectives get a Kripke style interpretation in terms (...) of a single ternary accessibility relation modeling the notion of linguistic composition for each individual system.The simple systems earch have their virtues in linguistic analysis. But none of them in isolation provides a basis for a full theory of grammar. In the second part of the paper, we consider two types of mixed Lambek systems. (shrink)

An axiomatics of the product-free syntactic calculus L ofLambek has been presented whose only rule is the cut rule. It was alsoproved that there is no finite axiomatics of that kind. The proofs weresubsequently simplified. Analogous results for the nonassociativevariant NL of L were obtained by Kandulski. InLambek's original version of the calculus, sequent antecedents arerequired to be nonempty. By removing this restriction, we obtain theextensions L 0 and NL 0 ofL and NL, respectively. Later, the finiteaxiomatization problem for L (...) 0 andNL 0 was partially solved, viz., for formulas withoutleft (or, equivalently, right) division and an (infinite) cut-ruleaxiomatics for the whole of L 0 has been given. Thepresent paper yields an analogous axiomatics forNL 0. Like in the author's previous work, the notionof rank of an axiom is introduced which, although inessentialfor the results given below, may be useful for the expectednonfinite-axiomatizability proof. (shrink)

In Zielonka (1981a, 1989), I found an axiomatics for the product-free calculus L of Lambek whose only rule is the cut rule. Following Buszkowski (1987), we shall call such an axiomatics linear. It was proved that there is no finite axiomatics of that kind. In Lambek's original version of the calculus (cf. Lambek, 1958), sequent antecedents are non empty. By dropping this restriction, we obtain the variant L0 of L. This modification, introduced in the early 1980s (see, e.g., Buszkowski, 1985; (...) Zielonka, 1981b), did not gain much popularity initially; a more common use of L0 has only occurred within the last few years (cf. Roorda, 1991: 29). In Zielonka (1988), I established analogous results for the restriction of L0 to sequents without left (or, equivalently, right) division. Here, I present a similar (cut-rule) axiomatics for the whole of L0.This paper is an extended, corrected, and completed version of Zielonka (1997). Unlike in Zielonka (1997), the notion of rank of an axiom is introduced which, although inessential for the results given below, may be useful for the expected non-finite-axiomatizability proof.The paper follows the same way of subject exposition as Zielonka (2000) but it is technically much less complicated. I restrict myself to giving bare results; all the ideological background is exactly the same as in case of the non-associative calculusNL0 and those who are interested in it are requested to consult the introductory section of Zielonka (2000). (shrink)

The paper continues a series of results on cut-rule axiomatizability of the Lambek calculus. It provides a complete solution of a problem which was solved partially in one of the author''s earlier papers. It is proved that the product-free Lambek Calculus with the empty string (L 0) is not finitely axiomatizable if the only rule of inference admitted is Lambek''s cut rule. The proof makes use of the (infinitely) cut-rule axiomatized calculus C designed by the author exactly for this purpose.

Several Gentzen-style syntactic type calculi with product are considered. They form a hierarchy in such a way that one calculus results from another by imposing a new condition upon the sequent-forming operation. It turns out that, at some steps of this process, two different functors collapse to a single one. For the remaining stages of the hierarchy, analogues of Wajsbergs's theorem on non-mutual-definability are proved.