Generalized Definitional Reflection and the Inversion Principle

Abstract.The term inversion principle goes back to Lorenzen who coined it in the early 1950s. It was later used by Prawitz and others to describe the symmetric relationship between introduction and elimination inferences in natural deduction, sometimes also called harmony. In dealing with the invertibility of rules of an arbitrary atomic production system, Lorenzen’s inversion principle has a much wider range than Prawitz’s adaptation to natural deduction. It is closely related to definitional reflection, which is a principle for reasoning on the basis of rule-based atomic definitions, proposed by Hallnäs and Schroeder-Heister. After presenting definitional reflection and the inversion principle, it is shown that the inversion principle can be formally derived from definitional reflection, when the latter is viewed as a principle to establish admissibility. Furthermore, the relationship between definitional reflection and the inversion principle is investigated on the background of a universalization principle, called the ω-principle, which allows one to pass from the set of all defined substitution instances of a sequent to the sequent itself.

[1]  Lars-Henrik Eriksson,et al.  The programming language GCLA — A definitional approach to logic programming , 2009, New Generation Computing.

[2]  M. E. Szabo,et al.  The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen , 1969 .

[3]  D. Prawitz Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study , 1965 .

[4]  Walter Pagel,et al.  Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie , 1981, Medical History.

[5]  Franz Baader,et al.  Unification theory , 1986, Decis. Support Syst..

[6]  Lars Hallnäs,et al.  On the Proof-theoretic Foundation of General Definition Theory , 2006, Synthese.

[7]  Lars Hallnäs,et al.  Partial Inductive Definitions , 1991, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[8]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  A natural extension of natural deduction , 1984, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[9]  Dag Prawitz Formulation des bétons autoplaçants : Optimisation du squelette granulaire par la méthode graphique de Dreux - Gorisse , 1974 .

[10]  W. Bibel,et al.  Automated deduction : a basis for applications , 1998 .

[11]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  On the notion of assumption in logical systems , 2003 .

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

[13]  J. A. Robinson,et al.  A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle , 1965, JACM.

[14]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[15]  D. Prawitz Proofs and the Meaning and Completeness of the Logical Constants , 1979 .

[16]  G. A. Miller,et al.  MATHEMATISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT. , 1920, Science.

[17]  G. Gentzen Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I , 1935 .

[18]  Dag Prawitz,et al.  On the idea of a general proof theory , 1974, Synthese.

[19]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Rules of definitional reflection , 1993, [1993] Proceedings Eighth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[20]  P. Lorenzen Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik , 1955 .

[21]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Validity Concepts in Proof-theoretic Semantics , 2006, Synthese.

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

[23]  Peter Schroeder-Heister Cut Elimination for Logics with Definitional Reflection , 1990, Nonclassical Logics and Information Processing.

[24]  Dag Prawitz,et al.  Meaning Approached Via Proofs , 2006, Synthese.

[25]  Enrico Moriconi,et al.  On Inversion Principles , 2008 .

[26]  Paul Lorenzen,et al.  Konstruktive Begründung der Mathematik , 1950 .

[27]  Lars Hallnäs,et al.  A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Logic Programming. I. Clauses as Rules , 1990, J. Log. Comput..