Towards automated reasoning in Herbrand structures

Herbrand structures have the advantage, computationally speaking, of being guided by the definability of all elements in them. A salient feature of the logics induced by them is that they internally exhibit the induction scheme, thus providing a congenial, computationally-oriented framework for formal inductive reasoning. Nonetheless, their enhanced expressivity renders any effective proof system for them incomplete. Furthermore, the fact that they are not compact poses yet another prooftheoretic challenge. This paper offers several layers for coping with the inherent incompleteness and non-compactness of these logics. First, two types of infinitary proof system are introduced—one of infinite width and one of infinite height—which manipulate infinite sequents and are sound and complete for the intended semantics. The restriction of these systems to finite sequents induces a completeness result for finite entailments. Then, in search of effectiveness, two finite approximations of these systems are presented and explored. Interestingly, the approximation of the infinite-width system via an explicit induction scheme turns out to be weaker than the effective cyclic fragment of the infinite-height system.

[1]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  What Is Negation as Failure? , 2012, Logic Programs, Norms and Action.

[2]  Hugo Paquet,et al.  Fully Abstract Models of the Probabilistic lambda-calculus , 2018, CSL.

[3]  James Brotherston,et al.  Sequent calculi for induction and infinite descent , 2011, J. Log. Comput..

[4]  Makoto Tatsuta,et al.  Classical System of Martin-Löf's Inductive Definitions Is Not Equivalent to Cyclic Proof System , 2017, FoSSaCS.

[5]  Anna Zamansky,et al.  Modular Construction of Cut-free Sequent Calculi for Paraconsistent Logics , 2012, 2012 27th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[6]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases: The Logical Level , 1995 .

[7]  G. Sundholm A Completeness Proof for an Infinitary Tense Logic , 2008 .

[8]  Jean-Pierre Jouannaud,et al.  Rewrite Systems , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[9]  Makoto Tatsuta,et al.  Equivalence of inductive definitions and cyclic proofs under arithmetic , 2017, 2017 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS).

[10]  Moshe Machover Set Theory, Logic and their Limitations , 1996 .

[11]  Yoni Zohar,et al.  Reasoning Inside The Box: Deduction in Herbrand Logics , 2017, GCAI.

[12]  F. Stephan,et al.  Set theory , 2018, Mathematical Statistics with Applications in R.

[13]  Francesca Poggiolesi,et al.  Gentzen Calculi for Modal Propositional Logic , 2010 .

[14]  Timothy L. Hinrichs,et al.  Herbrand Logic , 2006 .

[15]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  Introduction to Logic, Second Edition , 2013, Introduction to Logic.

[16]  Christian Straßer,et al.  Argumentative Approaches to Reasoning with Consistent Subsets of Premises , 2017, IEA/AIE.

[17]  James Brotherston,et al.  Cyclic proofs of program termination in separation logic , 2008, POPL '08.

[18]  Damien Pous,et al.  A Cut-Free Cyclic Proof System for Kleene Algebra , 2017, TABLEAUX.

[19]  Reuben N. S. Rowe,et al.  Automatic cyclic termination proofs for recursive procedures in separation logic , 2017, CPP.

[20]  Heinrich Wansing,et al.  Sequent Systems for Modal Logics , 2002 .

[21]  Reuben N. S. Rowe,et al.  Uniform Inductive Reasoning in Transitive Closure Logic via Infinite Descent , 2018, CSL.

[22]  James Brotherston,et al.  Automatically Verifying Temporal Properties of Pointer Programs with Cyclic Proof , 2017, CADE.

[23]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  The Herbrand Manifesto - Thinking Inside the Box , 2015, RuleML.

[24]  Peter Schroeder-Heister Definitional Reflection and the Completion , 1993, ELP.

[25]  Yuri Gurevich,et al.  The Classical Decision Problem , 1997, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic.

[26]  Richard C. T. Lee,et al.  Symbolic logic and mechanical theorem proving , 1973, Computer science classics.

[27]  Arnon Avron,et al.  Transitive Closure and the Mechanization of Mathematics , 2003 .

[28]  J. Flum,et al.  First-order logic and its extensions , 1975 .

[29]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  In handbook of automated reasoning , 2001 .

[30]  Jean H. Gallier,et al.  Logic for Computer Science: Foundations of Automatic Theorem Proving , 1985 .

[31]  Cristina Sernadas,et al.  Interpolation via translations , 2009, Math. Log. Q..

[32]  Arnon Avron,et al.  The middle ground-ancestral logic , 2015, Synthese.

[33]  James Brotherston Formalised Inductive Reasoning in the Logic of Bunched Implications , 2007, SAS.

[34]  Gerhard Gentzen,et al.  Investigations into Logical Deduction , 1970 .

[35]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Proof Theory for Fuzzy Logics , 2008 .

[36]  K. Schütte Beweistheoretische Erfassung der unendlichen Induktion in der Zahlentheorie , 1950 .

[37]  Liron Cohen,et al.  Completeness for Ancestral Logic via a Computationally-Meaningful Semantics , 2017, TABLEAUX.

[38]  Roy Dyckhoff,et al.  Extensions of Logic Programming: 4th International Workshop, ELP '93, St Andrews, U.K., March 29 - April 1, 1993. Proceedings , 1994 .

[39]  J. Lloyd Foundations of Logic Programming , 1984, Symbolic Computation.