Rules of definitional reflection

The author discusses two rules of definitional reflection: the logical version of definitional reflection, as used in the extended logic programming language GCLA, and the omega version of definitional reflection. The logical version is a left-introduction rule completely analogous to the left-introduction rules for logical operators in Gentzen-style sequent systems, whereas the omega version extends the logical version by a principle related to the omega rule in arithmetic. Correspondingly, the interpretation of free variables differs between the two approaches, resulting in different principles of closure of inference rules under substitution. This difference is crucial for the computational interpretation of definitional reflection.<<ETX>>

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

[2]  Frederic Brenton Fitch,et al.  A system of formal logic without an analogue to the curry W operator , 1936, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

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

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

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

[6]  Martin Aronsson.  Implementational Issues in GCLA: A-Sufficiency and Definiens Operation , 1992, ELP.

[7]  H. B. Curry.  The inconsistency of certain formal logics , 1942, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

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

[9]  Keith L. Clark,et al.  Negation as Failure , 1987, Logic and Data Bases.

[10]  Peter Schroeder-Heister.  Hypothetical Reasoning and Definitional Reflection in Logic Programming , 1989, ELP.

[11]  P. Martin-Löf.  Hauptsatz for the Intuitionistic Theory of Iterated Inductive Definitions , 1971 .

[12]  Lars Hallnäs,et al.  A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Logic Programming. II. Programs as Definitions , 1991, J. Log. Comput..

[13]  Daniel Fredholm,et al.  Partial inductive definitions as type-systems for λ-terms , 1992, BIT.

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

[15]  Seif Haridi,et al.  An Intuitionistic Predicate Logic Theorem Prover , 1989, J. Log. Comput..

[16]  Lars-Henrik Eriksson,et al.  Finitary Partial Inductive Definitions as a General Logic , 1993, ELP.

[17]  Lawrence C. Paulson,et al.  Logic Programming, Functional Programming, and Inductive Definitions , 1991, ELP.

[18]  Dale A. Miller,et al.  AN OVERVIEW OF PROLOG , 1988 .

[19]  Lars-Henrik Eriksson.  A Finitary Version of the Calculus of Partial Inductive Defintions , 1991, ELP.

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

[21]  Lars Hallnäs.  Partial inductive definitions , 1991 .