We present a direct proof of the consistency of the existence of a five element basis for the uncountable linear orders. Our argument is based on the approach of König, Larson, Moore and Veličković and simplifies the original proof of Moore.

Goal Directed Proof Theory presents a uniform and coherent methodology for automated deduction in non-classical logics, the relevance of which to computer science is now widely acknowledged. The methodology is based on goal-directed provability. It is a generalization of the logic programming style of deduction, and it is particularly favourable for proof search. The methodology is applied for the first time in a uniform way to a wide range of non-classical systems, covering intuitionistic, intermediate, modal and substructural logics. (...) The book can also be used as an introduction to these logical systems form a procedural perspective. Readership: Computer scientists, mathematicians and philosophers, and anyone interested in the automation of reasoning based on non-classical logics. The book is suitable for self study, its only prerequisite being some elementary knowledge of logic and proof theory. (shrink)

In [2], Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir prove that the simple phrase structure grammars (SPGs) defined by Chomsky are equivalent in a certain sense to Bar-Hillel's bidirectional categorial grammars (BCGs). On the other hand, Cohen [3] proves the equivalence of the latter ones to what the calls free categorial grammars (FCGs). They are closely related to Lambek's syntactic calculus which, in turn, is based on the idea due to Ajdukiewicz [1]. For the reasons which will be discussed in the last section, (...) Cohen's proof seems to be at least incomplete. This paper yields a direct proof of the equivalence ofFCGs andSPGs. (shrink)

Schwichtenberg showed that the System T definable functionals are closed under a rule-like version Spector’s bar recursion of lowest type levels 0 and 1. More precisely, if the functional Y which controls the stopping condition of Spector’s bar recursor is T-definable, then the corresponding bar recursion of type levels 0 and 1 is already T-definable. Schwichtenberg’s original proof, however, relies on a detour through Tait’s infinitary terms and the correspondence between ordinal recursion for α < ε₀ and primitive recursion (...) over finite types. This detour makes it hard to calculate on given concrete system T input, what the corresponding system T output would look like. In this paper we present an alternative (more direct) proof based on an explicit construction which we prove correct via a suitably defined logical relation. We show through an example how this gives a straightforward mechanism for converting bar recursive definitions into T-definitions under the conditions of Schwichtenberg’s theorem. Finally, with the explicit construction we can also easily state a sharper result: if Y is in the fragment Tᵢ then terms built from BR^ℕ,σ for this particular Y are definable in the fragment T_i+max{1,level(σ)}+2. (shrink)

Shelah has shown that the number d, the smallest cardinality of a dominating family, is less than or equal to the number i, the smallest cardinality of a maximal independent family on ω. This was done using a downward Löwenheim-Skolem argument. Thus it is interesting to find a direct “elementary” proof. Here we show that this can be done.

We discuss the problem raised by Miller to re-prove the well-known equivalences of some Lindenbaum theorems for deductive systems without an application of the Axiom of Choice. We present five special constructions of deductive systems, each of them providing some partial solutions to the mathematical problem. We conclude with a short discussion of the underlying philosophical problem of deciding, whether a given proof satisfies our demand that the Axiom of Choice is not applied.

We give a simplified proof of the main lemma in “Ramsey filters and the reaping number—Con” by Goldstern and Shelah.

In this paper, we present the outline for a goal-directed proof procedure for abductive reasoning and compare this procedure with Aliseda’s approach.

Classically, weak König's lemma and Brouwer's fan theorem for detachable bars are equivalent. We give a direct constructive proof that the former implies the latter.

We shall give a direct proof of the independence result of a Buchholz style-Hydra Game on labeled finite trees. We shall show that Takeuti-Arai's cut-elimination procedure of $(\Pi^{1}_{1}-CA) + BI$ and of the iterated inductive definition systems can be directly expressed by the reduction rules of Buchholz's Hydra Game. As a direct corollary the independence result of the Hydra Game follows.

In [BAT 00b], the flat Rescher–Manor consequence relations — the Free, Strong, Argued, C-Based, andWeak consequence relation—were shown to be characterized by inconsistency-adaptive logics defined from the paraconsistent logic CLuN. This provided these consequence relations with a dynamic proof theory. In the present paper we show that the detour via an inconsistency-adaptive logic is not necessary. We present a direct dynamic proof theory, formulated in the language of Classical Logic, and prove its adequacy. The present paper contains (...) the first direct dynamic proof theory for consequence relations that are characterized by an adaptive logic. (shrink)

Peter van Inwagen's influential Direct Argument (DA) for the incompatibility of moral responsibility and causal determinism makes use of an inference rule he calls "Rule B." Michael McKenna has argued that van Inwagen's defense of this rule is dialectically inappropriate because it is based entirely on alleged “confirming” cases that are not of the right kind to justify the use of Rule B in DA. Here I argue that McKenna’s objection is on the right track but more must be (...) said if we are to see why. To fill in the gaps I consider a recent attempt by Ira M. Schnall and David Widerker to defend DA against McKenna’s objection. I argue that neither prong of their attack is successful against a variation on McKenna’s basic argument. In the course of responding to Schnall and Widerker’s objections to McKenna, I identify what is, as I argue, the real reason DA fails in its purpose to shift the burden of proof. (shrink)

Different natural deduction proof systems for intuitionistic and classical logic —and related logical systems—differ in fundamental properties while sharing significant family resemblances. These differences become quite stark when it comes to the structural rules of contraction and weakening. In this paper, I show how Gentzen and Jaśkowski’s natural deduction systems differ in fine structure. I also motivate directed proof nets as another natural deduction system which shares some of the design features of Genzen and Jaśkowski’s systems, but which (...) differs again in its treatment of the structural rules, and has a range of virtues absent from traditional natural deduction systems. (shrink)

Peter van Inwagen's Direct Argument (DA) for incompatibilism purports to establish incompatibilism with respect to moral responsibility and determinism without appealing to assumptions that compatibilists usually consider controversial. Recently, Michael McKenna has presented a novel critique of DA. McKenna's critique raises important issues about philosophical dialectics. In this article, we address those issues and contend that his argument does not succeed.

By rephrasing quantifier-free axioms as rules of derivation in sequent calculus, we show that the generalized Steiner–Lehmus theorem admits a direct proof in classical logic. This provides a partial answer to a question raised by Sylvester in 1852. We also present some comments on possible intuitionistic approaches.

First-order logic is formalized by means of tools taken from the logic of questions. A calculus of questions which is a counterpart of the Pure Calculus of Quantifiers is presented. A direct proof of completeness of the calculus is given.

While direct proof is widely considered the paradigm of the acquisition of knowledge by deductive means, indirect proof has traditionally been criticized as showing merely ‘that’ its conclusion is true and not ‘why’ it is true. This paper accounts for the traditional objection by emphasizing the argumentative role in indirect proof of logical principles such as excluded middle and non-contradiction.

In this paper it is shown that addition of certain reductions to the standard cut removing reductions of deductions in prepositional logic makes prepositional logic non-normalizable. From this follows that some provable propositions in prepositional logic has no direct proof.

We develop a combinatorial model to study the evolution of graphs underlying proofs during the process of cut elimination. Proofs are two-dimensional objects and differences in the behavior of their cut elimination can often be accounted for by differences in their two-dimensional structure. Our purpose is to determine geometrical conditions on the graphs of proofs to explain the expansion of the size of proofs after cut elimination. We will be concerned with exponential expansion and we give upper and lower bounds (...) which depend on the geometry of the graphs. The lower bound is computed passing through the notion of universal covering for directed graphs. In this paper we present ground material for the study of cut elimination and structure of proofs in purely combinatorial terms. We develop a theory of duplication for directed graphs and derive results on graphs of proofs as corollaries. (shrink)

We give a proof of Hechler's theorem that any \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\aleph_1$\end{document}-directed partial order can be embedded via a ccc forcing notion cofinally into \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\omega^\omega$\end{document} ordered by eventual dominance. The proof relies on the standard forcing relation rather than the variant introduced by Hechler.

In this work we develop goal-directed deduction methods for the implicational fragment of several modal logics. We give sound and complete procedures for strict implication of K, T, K4, S4, K5, K45, KB, KTB, S5, G and for some intuitionistic variants. In order to achieve a uniform and concise presentation, we first develop our methods in the framework of Labelled Deductive Systems [Gabbay 96]. The proof systems we present are strongly analytical and satisfy a basic property of cut admissibility. (...) We then show that for most of the systems under consideration the labelling mechanism can be avoided by choosing an appropriate way of structuring theories. One peculiar feature of our proof systems is the use of restart rules which allow to re-ask the original goal of a deduction. In case of K, K4, S4 and G, we can eliminate such a rule, without loosing completeness. In all the other cases, by dropping such a rule, we get an intuitionistic variant of each system. The present results are part of a larger project of a goal directed proof theory for non-classical logics; the purpose of this project is to show that most implicational logics stem from slight variations of a unique deduction method, and from different ways of structuring theories. Moreover, the proof systems we present follow the logic programming style of deduction and seem promising for proof search [Gabbay and Reyle 84, Miller et al. 91]. (shrink)

In the first chapter, we discuss Dummett’s idea that the notion of truth arises from the one of the correctness of an assertion. We argue that, in a first-order language, the need of defining truth in terms of the notion of satisfaction, which is yielded by the presence of quantifiers, is structurally analogous to the need of a notion of truth as distinct from the one of correctness of an assertion. In the light of the analogy between predicates in Frege (...) and open formulas in Tarksi, we concentrate on the semantic status of predicates. We register a dual attitude of Dummett towards Frege’s ascription of reference to predicates. On the one it is needed to endow quantifiers with their appropriate meaning. On the other hand, the introduction of concepts, as semantic correlate of predicates, smuggles a realist flavor in the overall semantic picture. In concluding the excursus (and with it the chapter), we stress Dummett’s will of developing a semantic picture free from this realist trait. In the second chapter, we present the idea of a proof-theoretic semantics. As for Frege true sentences denotes the truth-value True, so here closed' (i.e. categorical) valid argumentations denotes proofs. If a language contains implication-like operators, in order to characterize the condition of validity of a closed argumentation one has to introduce a notion of validity applying to ‘open’ (i.e. hypothetical) argumentations. We argue that this problem is analogous to the one posed by quantifiers in Frege-Tarksi’s style semantics. That is, implication forces one to introduce notion of validity for argumentations, which is more substantial than the correctness of the assertion of their conclusions. As we saw, the corresponding claim in the truth-based approach—that quantifiers require one to introduce a notion of truth, which is more substantial than the one of an assertion being correct—was the source of realism. Hence, Dummett proposes to reduce the semantic contribution of open argumentations to the one of their ‘closed instances’. In the truth-based perspective, this would correspond to the denial of the need of introducing concepts as the semantic correlates of predicates. We argue that Dummett’s fear, that an irreducible notion of function (represented by the need of ascribing validity to open argumentations) would lead to realism, turns out to be ill-founded. In the third chapter, we discuss the role played by the notion of truth in the anti-realist account. The notion of truth is what the anti-realist needs to cope with the so-called paradox of deduction. The analysis of the paradox yields to distinguishing between the truth of a sentence and the truth of a sentence being recognized. In terms of these conceptual couple, we reconsider the relationship between truth and assertion in an anti-realist perspective. Grounds are provided for a thesis (which was already advanced in chapter two), according to which the notion of the assertion of a sentence being correct is primarily connected only with the canonical means of establishing a sentence. The possibility of establishing a sentence by indirect means is conceptually dependent on the practice of establishing logical relationship of dependence among sentences. That is, the notion of a closed valid non-canonical argumentation is of any theoretical relevance only in presence of a notion of validity applying to open argumentations. In the fourth chapter, we discuss the possibility of characterizing in the proof-theoretic-semantics a notion of refutation. We develop an original characterization of refutations starting from an informal inductive specification of the condition of refutations of logically complex sentences. A sub-structural logic, called dual-intuitionistic logic, stands to this notion in the same relationship in which intuitionistic logic stands to the notion of proof so far consdered. All notions developed in chapter 2 have their corresponding (dual) ones in the framework developed. In particular, the distinctions canonical/non-canonical and closed/open argumentations. In the refutation based perspective, elimination rules have priority over introductions and the (only) assumption over the (many) conclusions. In the conclusions, we indicate the ingredients that an anti-realist approach to meaning should incorporate, in order to avoid the difficulties we registered. The core of an alternative view is a different conception of the relationship between categorical and hypothetical notions, in which the validity of open argumentations is not reduced to that of their instances, but rather it is directly defined. As a limit case, one would get a notion of validity applying to closed argumentations. (shrink)

Proof complexity is a rich subject drawing on methods from logic, combinatorics, algebra and computer science. This self-contained book presents the basic concepts, classical results, current state of the art and possible future directions in the field. It stresses a view of proof complexity as a whole entity rather than a collection of various topics held together loosely by a few notions, and it favors more generalizable statements. Lower bounds for lengths of proofs, often regarded as the key (...) issue in proof complexity, are of course covered in detail. However, upper bounds are not neglected: this book also explores the relations between bounded arithmetic theories and proof systems and how they can be used to prove upper bounds on lengths of proofs and simulations among proof systems. It goes on to discuss topics that transcend specific proof systems, allowing for deeper understanding of the fundamental problems of the subject. (shrink)

Proofs and countermodels are the two sides of completeness proofs, but, in general, failure to find one does not automatically give the other. The limitation is encountered also for decidable non-classical logics in traditional completeness proofs based on Henkin’s method of maximal consistent sets of formulas. A method is presented that makes it possible to establish completeness in a direct way: For any given sequent either a proof in the given logical system or a countermodel in the corresponding (...) frame class is found. The method is a synthesis of a generation of calculi with internalized relational semantics, a Tait–Schütte–Takeuti style completeness proof, and procedures to finitize the countermodel construction. Finitizations for intuitionistic propositional logic are obtained through the search for a minimal derivation, through pruning of infinite branches in search trees by means of a suitable syntactic counterpart of semantic filtration, or through a proof-theoretic embedding into an appropriate provability logic. A number of examples illustrates the method, its subtleties, challenges, and present scope. (shrink)

We give a simple and direct proof that super-consistency implies the cut-elimination property in deduction modulo. This proof can be seen as a simplification of the proof that super-consistency implies proof normalization. It also takes ideas from the semantic proofs of cut elimination that proceed by proving the completeness of the cut-free calculus. As an application, we compare our work with the cut-elimination theorems in higher-order logic that involve V-complexes.

We present logic programming style “goal-directed” proof methods for Łukasiewicz logic Ł that both have a logical interpretation, and provide a suitable basis for implementation. We introduce a basic version, similar to goal-directed calculi for other logics, and make refinements to improve efficiency and obtain termination. We then provide an algorithm for fuzzy logic programming in Rational Pavelka logic RPL, an extension of Ł with rational constants.

This mathematics textbook covers the fundamental ideas used in writing proofs. Proof techniques covered include direct proofs, proofs by contrapositive, proofs by contradiction, proofs in set theory, proofs of existentially or universally quantified predicates, proofs by cases, and mathematical induction. Inductive and deductive reasoning are explored. A straightforward approach is taken throughout. Plenty of examples are included and lots of exercises are provided after each brief exposition on the topics at hand. The text begins with a study of (...) symbolic logic, deductive reasoning, and quantifiers. Inductive reasoning and making conjectures are examined next, and once there are some statements to prove, techniques for proving conditional statements, disjunctions, biconditional statements, and quantified predicates are investigated. Terminology and proof techniques in set theory follow with discussions of the pick-a-point method and the algebra of sets. Cartesian products, equivalence relations, orders, and functions are all incorporated. Particular attention is given to injectivity, surjectivity, and cardinality. The text includes an introduction to topology and abstract algebra, with a comparison of topological properties to algebraic properties. This book can be used by itself for an introduction to proofs course or as a supplemental text for students in proof-based mathematics classes. The contents have been rigorously reviewed and tested by instructors and students in classroom settings. (shrink)

The paper explores the potential of Byzantine diagrams in syllogistic logic. Byzantine diagrams are originated by Byzantine scholars in the early modern period to use as tools for teaching and studying Aristotelian logic. This paper presents pioneering work on employing Byzantine diagrams for checking syllogistic validity through reduction.

"Proof" has been and remains one of the concepts which characterises mathematics. Covering basic propositional and predicate logic as well as discussing axiom systems and formal proofs, the book seeks to explain what mathematicians understand by proofs and how they are communicated. The authors explore the principle techniques of direct and indirect proof including induction, existence and uniqueness proofs, proof by contradiction, constructive and non-constructive proofs, etc. Many examples from analysis and modern algebra are included. The (...) exceptionally clear style and presentation ensures that the book will be useful and enjoyable to those studying and interested in the notion of mathematical "proof.". (shrink)

The traditional view of evidence in mathematics is that evidence is just proof and proof is just derivation. There are good reasons for thinking that this view should be rejected: it misrepresents both historical and current mathematical practice. Nonetheless, evidence, proof, and derivation are closely intertwined. This paper seeks to tease these concepts apart. It emphasizes the role of argumentation as a context shared by evidence, proofs, and derivations. The utility of argumentation theory, in general, and argumentation (...) schemes, in particular, as a methodology for the study of mathematical practice is thereby demonstrated. Argumentation schemes represent an almost untapped resource for mathematics education. Notably, they provide a consistent treatment of rigorous and non-rigorous argumentation, thereby working to exhibit the continuity of reasoning in mathematics with reasoning in other areas. Moreover, since argumentation schemes are a comparatively mature methodology, there is a substantial body of existing work to draw upon, including some increasingly sophisticated software tools. Such tools have significant potential for the analysis and evaluation of mathematical argumentation. The first four sections of the paper address the relationships of evidence to proof, proof to derivation, argument to proof, and argument to evidence, respectively. The final section directly addresses some of the educational implications of an argumentation scheme account of mathematical reasoning. (shrink)

The relation of normic support offers a novel solution to the proof paradox: a paradox in evidence law arising from legal cases involving merely statistical evidence (Smith 2018). Central to the normic support solution has been the thesis that merely statistical evidence cannot confer normic support. However, it has been observed that there are exceptions to this: there exist cases where merely statistical evidence can give rise to normic support (Blome-Tillmann 2020). If correct, this fact seems to undermine the (...) normic support solution to the proof paradox. This paper explores a resolution: normic support can resolve the proof paradox even though merely statistical evidence sometimes gives rise to normic support. The key to understanding this resolution lies with a source of evidential support that arises out of bodies of evidence that involve *character evidence* (Colyvan, et al. 2001). It turns out that character evidence can provide normic support when it is grounded in our knowledge of a certain kind of disposition individuals can have: *goal-directed dispositions*. The upshot is the recovery of the normic support solution to the puzzle of whether statistical evidence can meet legal standards of proof. (shrink)

Peter van Inwagen's Direct Argument (DA) purports to establish the incompatibility of determinism and moral responsibility, without appealing to the notion of avoidability, a notion on whose analysis compatibilists and incompatibilists disagree. Van Inwagen intended DA to refute compatibilism, or at least to shift the burden of proof onto the compatibilist. In this paper, we offer a critical assessment of DA. We examine a variety of objections to DA due to John Fischer and Mark Ravizza, Ishtiyaque Haji, Seth (...) Shabo, Michael McKenna, and David Widerker. We divide these objections into those based on dialectical considerations (section 1), and objections in the form of counterexamples to a central principle which the Direct Argument employs (sec 2). The conclusion we reach is that the proponent of DA can deal plausibly with these objections, thus establishing DA as a powerful argument in favor of incompatibilism. (shrink)

In 1968, Orevkov presented proofs of conservativity of classical over intuitionistic and minimal predicate logic with equality for seven classes of sequents, what are known as Glivenko classes. The proofs of these results, important in the literature on the constructive content of classical theories, have remained somehow cryptic. In this paper, direct proofs for more general extensions are given for each class by exploiting the structural properties of G3 sequent calculi; for five of the seven classes the results are (...) strengthened to height-preserving statements, and it is further shown that the constructive and minimal proofs are identical in structure to the classical proof from which they are obtained. (shrink)

This book introduces students to the art and craft of writing proofs, beginning with the basics of writing proofs and logic, and continuing on with more in-depth issues and examples of creating proofs in different parts of mathematics, as well as introducing proofs-of-correctness for algorithms. The creation of proofs is covered for theorems in both discrete and continuous mathematics, and in difficulty ranging from elementary to beginning graduate level. Just beyond the standard introductory courses on calculus, theorems and proofs become (...) central to mathematics. Students often find this emphasis difficult and new. This book is a guide to understanding and creating proofs. It explains the standard "moves" in mathematical proofs: direct computation, expanding definitions, proof by contradiction, proof by induction, as well as choosing notation and strategies. (shrink)

This thesis is concerned with extending the underlying logical approach as well as the breadth of applications of the proof mining program to various (mostly previously untreated) areas of nonlinear analysis and optimization, with a particular focus being placed on topics which involve set-valued operators.For this, we extend the current logical methodology of proof mining by new systems and corresponding so-called logical metatheorems that cover these more involved areas of nonlinear analysis. Most of these systems crucially rely on (...) the use of intensional methods, treating sets with potentially high quantifier complexity in the defining matrix via characteristic functions and axioms that describe only their properties and do not completely characterize the elements of the sets.The applicability of all of these metatheorems is then substantiated by a range of case studies for the respective areas which in particular also highlight the naturalness of the use of intensional methods in the design of the corresponding systems.The first new area covered thereby is the theory of nonlinear semigroups induced by corresponding evolution equations for accretive operators. In that context, we present (besides an initial foray into the area from 2015) essentially the first applications of proof mining to the theory of partial differential equations. Concretely, we provide quantitative versions of four central results on the asymptotic behavior of solutions to such equations.The second new area unlocked in this thesis is that of the continuous dual of a Banach space and its norm (which are also approached via intensional methods). This in particular relies on a proof-theoretically tame treatment of suprema over (certain) bounded sets in this intensional context which is further exploited later on. These systems, which give access to this until now untreated fundamental notion from functional analysis, are then used to provide further substantial extensions to treat various notions from convex analysis like the Fréchet derivative of a convex function, Fenchel conjugates, Bregman distances, and monotone operators on Banach spaces in the sense of Browder.These systems are then utilized to provide applications in the context of Picard- and Halpern-style iterations of so-called Bregman strongly nonexpansive mappings where we provide both new quantitative and qualitative results.Lastly, we discuss the key notion of extensionality of a set-valued operator and its relation to set-theoretic maximality principles in more depth (which was already singled out—to some degree—in previous work). We thereby exhibit an issue arising with treating full extensionality in the context of these intensional approaches to set-valued operators and present useful fragments of the full extensionality statement where these issues are avoided.Corresponding to these fragments, we discuss a range of uniform continuity statements for set-valued operators beyond the usual notion involving the Hausdorff-metric. In particular, in that context, we utilize the previous tame treatment of suprema over bounded sets to also provide the first proof-theoretic treatment of that Hausdorff-metric in the context of systems for proof mining.The applicability of this treatment of the Hausdorff-metric is then in particular substantiated by a last case study where we provide quantitative information for a Mann-type iteration of set-valued mappings which are nonexpansive w.r.t. the Hausdorff-metric.The abstract was taken directly from the thesis.Abstract prepared by Nicholas Pischke, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, GermanyE-mail: [email protected]: https://doi.org/10.26083/tuprints-00026584. (shrink)

Gentzen writes in the published version of his doctoral thesis Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen that he was able to prove the normalization theorem only for intuitionistic natural deduction, but not for classical. To cover the latter, he developed classical sequent calculus and proved a corresponding theorem, the famous cut elimination result. Its proof was organized so that a cut elimination result for an intuitionistic sequent calculus came out as a special case, namely the one in which the sequents (...) have at most one formula in the right, succedent part. Thus, there was no need for a direct proof of normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. The only traces of such a proof in the published thesis are some convertibilities, such as when an implication introduction is followed by an implication elimination [1934–35, II.5.13]. It remained to Dag Prawitz in 1965 to work out a proof of normalization. Another, less known proof was given also in 1965 by Andres Raggio.We found in February 2005 an early handwritten version of Gentzen's thesis, with exactly the above title, but with rather different contents: Most remarkably, it contains a detailed proof of normalization for what became the standard system of natural deduction. The manuscript is located in the Paul Bernays collection at the ETH-Zurichwith the signum Hs. 974: 271. Bernays must have gotten it well before the time of his being expelled from Göttingen on the basis of the racial laws in April 1933. (shrink)

Solovay has shown that if $\cal{O}$ is an open subset of $P(\omega)$ with code $S$ and no infinite set avoids $\cal{O}$ , then there is an infinite set hyperarithmetic in $S$ that lands in $\cal{O}$ . We provide a direct proof of this theorem that is easily formalizable in $ATR_0$.

The notion of proof is central to mathematics yet it is one of the most difficult aspects of the subject to teach and master. In particular, undergraduate mathematics students often experience difficulties in understanding and constructing proofs. Understanding Mathematical Proof describes the nature of mathematical proof, explores the various techniques that mathematicians adopt to prove their results, and offers advice and strategies for constructing proofs. It will improve students’ ability to understand proofs and construct correct proofs of (...) their own. The first chapter of the text introduces the kind of reasoning that mathematicians use when writing their proofs and gives some example proofs to set the scene. The book then describes basic logic to enable an understanding of the structure of both individual mathematical statements and whole mathematical proofs. It also explains the notions of sets and functions and dissects several proofs with a view to exposing some of the underlying features common to most mathematical proofs. The remainder of the book delves further into different types of proof, including direct proof, proof using contrapositive, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction. The authors also discuss existence and uniqueness proofs and the role of counter examples. (shrink)

A general method for generating contraction- and cut-free sequent calculi for a large family of normal modal logics is presented. The method covers all modal logics characterized by Kripke frames determined by universal or geometric properties and it can be extended to treat also Gödel-Löb provability logic. The calculi provide direct decision methods through terminating proof search. Syntactic proofs of modal undefinability results are obtained in the form of conservativity theorems.

A sequent calculus methodology for systems of agency based on branching-time frames with agents and choices is proposed, starting with a complete and cut-free system for multi-agent deliberative STIT; the methodology allows a transparent justification of the rules, good structural properties, analyticity, direct completeness and decidability proofs.