We consider the following problem: Given a proof of the Skolemization of a formula F, what is the length of the shortest proof of F? For the restriction of this question to cut-free proofs we prove corresponding exponential upper and lower bounds.

We study cut-elimination in first-order classical logic. We construct a sequence of polynomial-length proofs having a non-elementary number of different cut-free normal forms. These normal forms are different in a strong sense: they not only represent different Herbrand-disjunctions but also differ in their propositional structure. This result illustrates that the constructive content of a proof in classical logic is not uniquely determined but rather depends on the chosen method for extracting it.

We investigate quantifier-free induction for Lisp-like lists constructed inductively from the empty list $$nil$$ nil and the operation $${\textit{cons}}$$ cons, that adds an element to the front of a list. First we show that, for $$m \ge 1$$ m ≥ 1, quantifier-free $$m$$ m -step induction does not simulate quantifier-free $$(m + 1)$$ ( m + 1 ) -step induction. Secondly, we show that for all $$m \ge 1$$ m ≥ 1, quantifier-free $$m$$ m -step induction does not (...) prove the right cancellation property of the concatenation operation on lists defined by left-recursion. (shrink)

Herbrand’s theorem is one of the most fundamental results about first-order logic. In the context of proof analysis, Herbrand-disjunctions are used for describing the constructive content of cut-free proofs. However, given a proof with cuts, the computation of a Herbrand-disjunction is of significant computational complexity, as the cuts in the proof have to be eliminated first.In this paper we prove a generalization of Herbrand’s theorem: From a proof with cuts, one can read off a small tautology composed of instances of (...) the end-sequent and the cut formulas. This tautology describes the proof in the following way: Each cut induces a formula stating that a disjunction of instances of the cut formula implies a conjunction of instances of the cut formula. All these cut-implications together then imply the already existing instances of the end-sequent. The proof that this formula is a tautology is carried out by transforming the instances in the proof to normal forms and using characteristic clause sets to relate them. These clause sets have first been studied in the context of cut-elimination.This extended Herbrand theorem is then applied to cut-elimination sequences in order to show that, for the computation of an Herbrand-disjunction, the knowledge of only the term substitutions performed during cut-elimination is already sufficient. (shrink)

We formulate Hilbert’s epsilon calculus in the context of expansion proofs. This leads to a simplified proof of the epsilon theorems by disposing of the need for prenexification, Skolemisation, and their respective inverse transformations. We observe that the natural notion of cut in the epsilon calculus is associative.

We define a generalization of the first-order cut-elimination method CERES to higher-order logic. At the core of lies the computation of an set of sequents from a proof π of a sequent S. A refutation of in a higher-order resolution calculus can be used to transform cut-free parts of π into a cut-free proof of S. An example illustrates the method and shows that can produce meaningful cut-free proofs in mathematics that traditional cut-elimination methods cannot reach.

We investigate the development of terms during cut-elimination in first-order logic and Peano arithmetic for proofs of existential formulas. The form of witness terms in cut-free proofs is characterized in terms of structured combinations of basic substitutions. Based on this result, a regular tree grammar computing witness terms is given and a class of proofs is shown to have only elementary cut-elimination.

For any extension $T$ of $I\Sigma_{1}$ having a cut-elimination property extending that of $I\Sigma_{1}$ , the number of different proofs that can be obtained by cut elimination from a single $T$ -proof cannot be bound by a function which is provably total in $T$.