Least and Greatest Fixed Points in Linear Logic

The first-order theory of MALL (multiplicative, additive linear logic) over only equalities is an interesting but weak logic since it cannot capture unbounded (infinite) behavior. Instead of accounting for unbounded behavior via the addition of the exponentials (! and ?), we add least and greatest fixed point operators. The resulting logic, which we call µMALL=, satisfies two fundamental proof theoretic properties. In particular, µMALL= satisfies cut-elimination, which implies consistency, and has a complete focused proof system. This second result about focused proofs provides a strong normal form for cut-free proof structures that can be used, for example, to help automate proof search. We then consider applying these two results about µMALL= to derive a focused proof system for an intuitionistic logic extended with induction and co-induction. The traditional approach to encoding intuitionistic logic into linear logic relies heavily on using the exponentials, which unfortunately weaken the focusing discipline. We get a better focused proof system by observing that certain fixed points satisfy the structural rules of weakening and contraction (without using exponentials). The resulting focused proof system for intuitionistic logic is closely related to the one implemented in Bedwyr, a recent model checker based on logic programming. We discuss how our proof theory might be used to build a computational system that can partially automate induction and co-induction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Contributions to the Theory of Logic Programming , 1982, JACM.

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

[9]  Dale Miller,et al.  Logic Programming in a Fragment of Intuitionistic Linear Logic , 1994, Inf. Comput..

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

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

[12]  Dale Miller,et al.  A Game Semantics for Proof Search: Preliminary Results , 2005, MFPS.

[13]  Jean-Yves Girard,et al.  Linear Logic , 1987, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  JEAN-MARC ANDREOLI,et al.  Logic Programming with Focusing Proofs in Linear Logic , 1992, J. Log. Comput..

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

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

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

[18]  Alwen Tiu,et al.  Model Checking for pi-Calculus Using Proof Search , 2005, CONCUR.

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

[20]  J. Hannan,et al.  A logical framework for reasoning about logical specifications , 2004 .

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

[22]  Jean-Yves Girard,et al.  Locus Solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules , 2001, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[23]  Jean-Yves Girard,et al.  Light Linear Logic , 1998, Inf. Comput..

[24]  Yves Lafont,et al.  Soft linear logic and polynomial time , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..