The complexity of decision procedures in relevance logic II

In this paper, we show that there is no primitive recursive decision procedure for the implication-conjunction fragments of the relevant logics R, E and T, as well as for a family of related logics. The lower bound on the complexity is proved by combining the techniques of an earlier paper on the same subject [20] with a method used by Lincoln, Mitchell, Scedrov and Shankar in proving that propositional linear logic is undecidable. The decision problem for the pure implicational fragments of E and R were solved by Saul Kripke in a tour de force of combinatorial reasoning, published only as an abstract [9]. Belnap and Wallace extended Kripke's decision procedure to the implication-negation fragment of E in [3]; an account of their decision method is to be found in [1, pp. 124–139]. The decision method extends immediately to the implication/negation fragment of R. In fact, in the case of R we can go farther: Meyer in his thesis [13] showed how to translate the logic LR, which results from R by omitting the distribution axiom, into R→⋀, so that the decision procedure can be extended to all of LR. This decision procedure has been implemented as a program Kripke by Thistlewaite, McRobbie and Meyer [17]. The program is not simply a straightforward implementation of the decision procedure; finite matrices are used extensively to prune invalid nodes from the search tree.

[1]  Natarajan Shankar,et al.  Decision problems for propositional linear logic , 1990, Proceedings [1990] 31st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[2]  Saul Kripke,et al.  A completeness theorem in modal logic , 1959, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[3]  Nuel D. Belnap,et al.  A Decision Procedure For the System EĪ of Entailment with Negation , 1965 .

[4]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  The complexity of Boolean functions , 1987 .

[5]  Alonzo Church,et al.  Introduction to Mathematical Logic , 1991 .

[6]  Steve Giambrone,et al.  R+ is contained in T , 1980 .

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

[8]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation , 1979 .

[9]  W. Ackermann Zum Hilbertschen Aufbau der reellen Zahlen , 1928 .

[10]  Richard Sylvan,et al.  The semantics of entailment—II , 1972, Journal of Philosophical Logic.

[11]  A. Meyer,et al.  The complexity of the word problems for commutative semigroups and polynomial ideals , 1982 .

[12]  Kenneth McAloon,et al.  Petri Nets and Large Finite Sets , 1984, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  J. Roger Hindley,et al.  Introduction to combinators and λ-calculus , 1986, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae.

[14]  Alasdair Urquhart,et al.  The undecidability of entailment and relevant implication , 1984, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[15]  Graham Higman,et al.  Ordering by Divisibility in Abstract Algebras , 1952 .

[16]  Richard Routley,et al.  An undecidable relevant logic , 1973 .

[17]  Richard Statman,et al.  Intuitionistic Propositional Logic is Polynomial-Space Complete , 1979, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[18]  Michael A. McRobbie,et al.  Automated theorem proving for non-classical logics , 1988, Research Notes in Theoretical Computer Science.

[19]  Wilhelm Ackermann,et al.  Begründung einer strengen Implikation , 1956, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[20]  L. Dickson Finiteness of the Odd Perfect and Primitive Abundant Numbers with n Distinct Prime Factors , 1913 .

[21]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Parallel Program Schemata , 1969, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[22]  Albert R. Meyer,et al.  The Complexity of the Finite Containment Problem for Petri Nets , 1981, JACM.