On bunched predicate logic

We present the logic of bunched implications, BI, in which a multiplicative (or linear) and an additive (or intuitionistic) implication live side-by-side. The propositional version of BI arises from an analysis of the proof-theoretic relationship between conjunction and implication, and may be viewed as a merging of intuitionistic logic and multiplicative, intuitionistic linear logic. The predicate version of BI includes, in addition to usual additive quantifiers, multiplicative (or intensional) quantifiers /spl forall//sub new/, and /spl exist//sub new/, which arise from observing restrictions on structural rules on the level of terms as well as propositions. Moreover, these restrictions naturally allow the distinction between additive predication and multiplicative predication for each propositional connective. We provide a natural deduction system, a sequent calculus, a Kripke semantics and a BHK semantics for BI. We mention computational interpretations, based on locality and sharing, at both the propositional and predicate levels. We explain BI's relationship with intuitionistic logic, linear logic and other relevant logics.

[1]  Gopalan Nadathur,et al.  Uniform Proofs as a Foundation for Logic Programming , 1991, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[2]  Nuel D. Belnap,et al.  Entailment : the logic of relevance and necessity , 1975 .

[3]  Jean-Yves Girard,et al.  On the Unity of Logic , 1993, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[4]  David J. Pym.  Logic Programming with Bunched Implications , 1998, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Alan Weir,et al.  Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference , 1990 .

[6]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of philosophical logic. Vol. 3, Alternatives ofclassical logic , 1994 .

[7]  Andrew Barber,et al.  Dual Intuitionistic Linear Logic , 1996 .

[8]  Patrick Lincoln,et al.  Linear logic , 1992, SIGA.

[9]  N. Belnap,et al.  Entailment. The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Volume I , 1978 .

[10]  Simon Ambler.  First order linear logic in symmetric monoidal closed categories , 1991 .

[11]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Semantical Analysis of Intuitionistic Logic I , 1965 .

[12]  David J. Pym,et al.  A Relevant Analysis of Natural Deduction , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[13]  Samson Abramsky,et al.  Computational Interpretations of Linear Logic , 1993, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Gavin M. Bierman.  What is a Categorical Model of Intuitionistic Linear Logic? , 1995, TLCA.

[15]  P. Schroeder-Heister.  Structural frameworks, substructural logics, and the role of elimination inferences , 1991 .

[16]  Dale Miller,et al.  Logic Programming in a Fragment of Intuitionistic Linear Logic , 1994, Inf. Comput..

[17]  Nuel Belnap,et al.  Display logic , 1982, J. Philos. Log..

[18]  James Harland,et al.  A Uniform Proof-Theoretic Investigation of Linear Logic Programming , 1994, J. Log. Comput..

[19]  Alasdair Urquhart,et al.  Semantics for relevant logics , 1972, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[20]  B. Day.  On closed categories of functors , 1970 .

[21]  P. Martin-Löf.  On the meanings of the logical constants and the justi cations of the logical laws , 1996 .

[22]  G. Matthews.  Review: Alan Ross Anderson, Nuel D. Belnap., Entailment. The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Volume I , 1977 .

[23]  Peter W. O'Hearn,et al.  The Logic of Bunched Implications , 1999, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic.

[24]  H. A. Lewis,et al.  ENTAILMENT: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity (Volume I) , 1978 .