Exploiting non-canonicity in the sequent calculus

Although logic and proof theory have been successfully used as a framework for the specification of computation systems, there is still an important gap between the systems that logic can capture and the systems used in practice. This thesis attempts to reduce this gap by exploiting, in the context of the computation-as-proof-search paradigm, two non-canonical aspects of sequent calculus, namely the polarity assignment in focused proofs and the linear logic exponentials. We exploit these aspects in three different domains of computer science: tabled deduction, logical frameworks, and algorithmic specifications. This thesis provides a proof theoretic explanation for tabled deduction by exploiting the fact that in intuitionistic logic atoms can be assigned arbitrary polarity. A table is a partially ordered set of formulas and is incorporated into a proof via multicut derivations. Here, we consider two cases: the first case is when tables contain only finite successes and the second case is when tables may also contain finite failures. We propose a focused proof system for each one of these cases and show that, in some subsets of logic, the only proofs and open derivations available in these systems are those that do not attempt to reprove tabled formulas. We illustrate these results with some examples, such as simulation, winning strategies, and let polymorphism typechecking. We show that linear logic can be used as a general framework for encoding proof systems for minimal, intuitionistic, and classical logics. First, we demonstrate that with a single linear logic theory, one can faithfully account for natural deduction (normal and non-normal), sequent calculus (with and without cut), natural deduction with general elimination rules, free deduction and tableaux proof systems by using logical equivalences and different polarity assignments to meta-level literals. Then we exploit the fact that linear logic exponentials are not canonical and propose linear logic theories that faithfully encode different proof systems; for example, a multi-conclusion system for intuitionistic logic and several focusing proof systems. The last contribution of this thesis investigates what type of algorithms can be expressed by using linear logic’s non-canonical exponentials. In particular, we use different exponentials to “locate” multisets of data, and then we show that focused proof search can be precisely linked to a simple algorithmic specification language that contains while-loops, conditionals, and insertion into and deletion from multisets. Finally, we illustrate this result with several graph algorithms, such as Dijkstra’s algorithm for finding the shortest distances in a positively weighted graph and an algorithm for checking if a graph is bipartite.

[1]  Frank Pfenning,et al.  Efficient Resource Management for Linear Logic Proof Search , 1996, ELP.

[2]  Robert J. Simmons,et al.  Linear logical approximations , 2009, PEPM '09.

[3]  Vivek Nigam Using Tables to Construct Non-Redundant Proofs , 2008 .

[4]  Jean-Marc Andreoli,et al.  LO and behold! Concurrent structured processes , 1990, OOPSLA/ECOOP '90.

[5]  Shôji Maehara,et al.  Eine Darstellung der Intuitionistischen Logik in der Klassischen , 1954, Nagoya Mathematical Journal.

[6]  C. R. Ramakrishnan,et al.  Efficient Model Checking Using Tabled Resolution , 1997, CAV.

[7]  J. S. Hodas Logic programming in intuitionistic linear logic: theory, design, and implementation , 1995 .

[8]  John Slaney Solution to a problem of Ono and Komori , 1989, J. Philos. Log..

[9]  Martín Abadi,et al.  Logic in access control , 2003, 18th Annual IEEE Symposium of Logic in Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[10]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  A Discipline of Programming , 1976 .

[11]  Dale Miller,et al.  A Unified Sequent Calculus for Focused Proofs , 2009, 2009 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science.

[12]  Frank Pfenning Structural Cut Elimination: I. Intuitionistic and Classical Logic , 2000, Inf. Comput..

[13]  Brigitte Pientka Tabling for Higher-Order Logic Programming , 2005, CADE.

[14]  Frank Pfenning,et al.  Monadic concurrent linear logic programming , 2005, PPDP.

[15]  Radha Jagadeesan,et al.  Testing Concurrent Systems: An Interpretation of Intuitionistic Logic , 2005, FSTTCS.

[16]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[17]  Helmut Schwichtenberg,et al.  Basic proof theory , 1996, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[18]  Alberto Momigliano,et al.  Induction and Co-induction in Sequent Calculus , 2003, TYPES.

[19]  Jan von Plato,et al.  Natural deduction with general elimination rules , 2001, Arch. Math. Log..

[20]  Dale Miller,et al.  Algorithmic specifications in linear logic with subexponentials , 2009, PPDP '09.

[21]  Iliano Cervesato Typed MSR: Syntax and Examples , 2001, MMM-ACNS.

[22]  Elaine Pimentel LINEAR LOGIC AS A FRAMEWORK FOR SPECIFYING SEQUENT CALCULUS , 2002 .

[23]  D. Dalen Review: Georg Kreisel, Godel's Intepretation of Heyting's Arithmetic; G. Kreisel, Relations Between Classes of Constructive Functionals; Georg Kreisel, A. Heyting, Interpretation of Analysis by Means of Constructive Functionals of Finite Types , 1971 .

[24]  Dale Miller,et al.  Forum: A Multiple-Conclusion Specification Logic , 1996, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Gérard Berry,et al.  The chemical abstract machine , 1989, POPL '90.

[26]  Joseph R. Shoenfield,et al.  Mathematical logic , 1967 .

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

[28]  Amy P. Felty,et al.  Specifying Theorem Provers in a Higher-Order Logic Programming Language , 1988, CADE.

[29]  Elaine Pimentel,et al.  Using Linear Logic to Reason about Sequent Systems , 2002, TABLEAUX.

[30]  Valeria de Paiva,et al.  Cut-Elimination for Full Intuitionistic Linear Logic , 1996 .

[31]  Hugo Herbelin Séquents qu'on calcule: de l'interprétation du calcul des séquents comme calcul de lambda-termes et comme calcul de stratégies gagnantes. (Computing with sequents: on the interpretation of sequent calculus as a calculus of lambda-terms and as a calculus of winning strategies) , 1995 .

[32]  Jean-Marc Andreoli,et al.  Linear objects: Logical processes with built-in inheritance , 1990, New Generation Computing.

[33]  Kazushige Terui,et al.  From Axioms to Analytic Rules in Nonclassical Logics , 2008, 2008 23rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[34]  Alonzo Church,et al.  A formulation of the simple theory of types , 1940, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[35]  Dale Miller,et al.  A Framework for Proof Systems , 2010, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[36]  J. Girard,et al.  Proofs and types , 1989 .

[37]  Dale Miller,et al.  Focusing in linear meta-logic: extended report , 2008 .

[38]  Sara Negri,et al.  Structural proof theory , 2001 .

[39]  Roy Dyckhoff,et al.  Call-by-Value λ-calculus and LJQ , 2007 .

[40]  Harald Ganzinger,et al.  Logical Algorithms , 2002, ICLP.

[41]  Gopalan Nadathur,et al.  Mixing Finite Success and Finite Failure in an Automated Prover , 2005 .

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

[43]  Kevin D. Bowers,et al.  Consumable Credentials in Logic-Based Access-Control Systems , 2006 .

[44]  Gopalan Nadathur,et al.  The Bedwyr System for Model Checking over Syntactic Expressions , 2007, CADE.

[45]  Catuscia Palamidessi,et al.  Encoding Transition Systems in Sequent Calculus , 2003, Linear Logic Tokyo Meeting.

[46]  Frank Pfenning,et al.  A Logical Characterization of Forward and Backward Chaining in the Inverse Method , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[47]  Roy Dyckhoff,et al.  Call-by-Value lambda-calculus and LJQ , 2007, J. Log. Comput..

[48]  Wilfried Sieg,et al.  Normal Natural Deduction Proofs (in classical logic) , 1998, Stud Logica.

[49]  Dale Miller,et al.  On the Specification of Sequent Systems , 2005, LPAR.

[50]  Dale Miller,et al.  Incorporating Tables into Proofs , 2007, CSL.

[51]  Dale Miller,et al.  Canonical Sequent Proofs via Multi-Focusing , 2008, IFIP TCS.

[52]  Andrew Gacek The Abella Interactive Theorem Prover (System Description) , 2008, IJCAR.

[53]  Dale Miller,et al.  Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic , 1991, [1991] Proceedings Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[54]  Michael Winikoff,et al.  Implementing the Linear Logic Programming Language Lygon , 1995, ILPS.

[55]  F. Honsell,et al.  A Framework for De ning LogicsRobert Harper , 1987 .

[56]  Robert J. Simmons,et al.  Linear Logical Algorithms , 2008, ICALP.

[57]  Dale Miller,et al.  Least and Greatest Fixed Points in Linear Logic , 2007, LPAR.

[58]  Martín Abadi,et al.  A Modal Deconstruction of Access Control Logics , 2008, FoSSaCS.

[59]  Roy Dyckhoff,et al.  LJQ: A Strongly Focused Calculus for Intuitionistic Logic , 2006, CiE.

[60]  M. Minsky Recursive Unsolvability of Post's Problem of "Tag" and other Topics in Theory of Turing Machines , 1961 .

[61]  David McAllester A logical algorithm for ML type inference , 2003 .

[62]  Dale Miller,et al.  Focusing and Polarization in Intuitionistic Logic , 2007, CSL.

[63]  Paulo Oliva,et al.  Hybrid Functional Interpretations , 2008, CiE.

[64]  Vincent Danos,et al.  The Structure of Exponentials: Uncovering the Dynamics of Linear Logic Proofs , 1993, Kurt Gödel Colloquium.

[65]  Dale Miller,et al.  A Logical Analysis of Modules in Logic Programming , 1989, J. Log. Program..

[66]  Vincent Danos,et al.  LKQ and LKT: sequent calculi for second order logic based upon dual linear decompositions of classical implication , 1995 .

[67]  Daniel Le Métayer,et al.  Gamma and the chemical reaction model: ten years after , 1996 .

[68]  Frank Pfenning,et al.  Structural cut elimination , 1995, Proceedings of Tenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[69]  R. Smullyan First-Order Logic , 1968 .

[70]  Frank Pfenning,et al.  The focused inverse method for linear logic , 2006 .

[71]  Lawrence C. Paulson,et al.  The foundation of a generic theorem prover , 1989, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

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

[73]  Gopalan Nadathur,et al.  Hereditary Harrop Formulas and Uniform Proof Systems , 1987, Logic in Computer Science.

[74]  Dale Miller,et al.  Focusing in Linear Meta-logic , 2008, IJCAR.

[75]  Dale Miller,et al.  Cut-elimination for a logic with definitions and induction , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[76]  Harald Ganzinger,et al.  A New Meta-complexity Theorem for Bottom-Up Logic Programs , 2001, IJCAR.

[77]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Theory of Type Polymorphism in Programming , 1978, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[78]  Vito F. Sinisi,et al.  Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity , 1996 .

[79]  Kaustuv Chaudhuri,et al.  On the Expressivity of Two Refinements of Multiplicative Exponential Linear Logic , 2009 .

[80]  Frank Pfenning,et al.  Elf: a language for logic definition and verified metaprogramming , 1989, [1989] Proceedings. Fourth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[81]  Chuck Liang,et al.  Focusing and polarization in linear, intuitionistic, and classical logics , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[82]  Alessio Guglielmi,et al.  A linear logic view of gamma style computations as proof searches , 1996 .

[83]  Dale Miller,et al.  From Proofs to Focused Proofs: A Modular Proof of Focalization in Linear Logic , 2007, CSL.