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 this paper we present an approach to automated learning within mathematical reasoning systems. In particular, the approach enables proof planning systems to automatically learn new proof methods from well-chosen examples of proofs which use a similar reasoning pattern to prove related theorems. Our approach consists of an abstract representation for methods and a machine learning technique which can learn methods using this representation formalism. We present an implementation of the approach within the ΩMEGA (...) class='Hi'>proof planning system, which we call LEARNΩMATIC. We also present the results of the experiments that we ran on this implementation in order to evaluate if and how it improves the power of proof planning systems. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this paper we define two logics, KLn and BLn, and present tableau-based decision procedures for both. KLn is a temporal logic of knowledge. Thus, in addition to the usual connectives of linear discrete temporal logic, it contains a set of unary modal connectives for representing the knowledge possessed by agents. The logic BLn is somewhat similar; it is a temporal logic that contains connectives for representing the beliefs of agents. In addition to a complete formal definition of the (...) two logics and their decision procedures, the paper includes a brief review of their applications in AI and mainstream computer science, correctness proofs for the decision procedures, a number of worked examples illustrating the decision procedures, and some pointers to further work. (shrink)

On a traditional view, the primary role of a mathematical proof is to warrant the truth of the resulting theorem. This view fails to explain why it is very often the case that a new proof of a theorem is deemed important. Three case studies from elementary arithmetic show, informally, that there are many criteria by which ordinary proofs are valued. I argue that at least some of these criteria depend on the methods of inference the proofs (...) employ, and that standard models of formal deduction are not well-equipped to support such evaluations. I discuss a model of proof that is used in the automated deduction community, and show that this model does better in that respect. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to present the method of Socratic proofs for seven modal propositional logics: K5, S4.2, S4.3, S4M, S4F, S4R and G. This work is an extension of [10] where the method was presented for the most common modal propositional logics: K, D, T, KB, K4, S4 and S5.

In the period 1893–1897 Charles Dodgson, writing as Lewis Carroll, published two books and two articles on logic topics. Manuscript material first published in 1977 together with letters and diary entries provide evidence that he was working toward a visual proof system for complex syllogistic propositional logic based on a mechanical tree method that he devised.

The goal of this paper is to propose correspondence analysis as a technique for generating the so-called erotetic calculi which constitute the method of Socratic proofs by Andrzej Wiśniewski. As we explain in the paper, in order to successfully design an erotetic calculus one needs invertible sequent-calculus-style rules. For this reason, the proposed correspondence analysis resulting in invertible rules can constitute a new foundation for the method of Socratic proofs. Correspondence analysis is Kooi and Tamminga's technique for designing proof (...) systems. In this paper it is used to consider sequent calculi with non-branching, invertible rules for the negation fragment of classical propositional logic and its extensions by binary Boolean functions. (shrink)

Peirce’s triadic logic has been under discussion since its discovery in the 1960s by Fisch and Turquette. The experiments with matrices of three-valued logic are recorded in a few pages of unpublished manuscripts dated 1909, a decade before similar systems have been developed by logicians. The purposes of Peirce’s work on such logic, as well as semantical aspects of his system, are disputable. In the most extensive work about it, Turquette suggested that the matrices are related in dual pairs of (...) axiomatic Hilbert-style systems. In this paper, we present a simple tableau proof for a fragment of Peirce three-valued logic, called P3, based on similar approaches in many-valued literature. We demonstrated that this proof is sound and complete. Besides that, taking the false as the only undesignated value and adding non-classical negations to the calculus, we can explore paraconsistent and paracompleteness theories into P3. Keywords: Charles S. Peirce, many-valued logics, theory of proof, tableau method. (shrink)

Until not too many years ago, all logics except classical logic (and, perhaps, intuitionistic logic too) were considered to be things esoteric. Today this state of a airs seems to have completely been changed. There is a growing interest in many types of nonclassical logics: modal and temporal logics, substructural logics, paraconsistent logics, non-monotonic logics { the list is long. The diversity of systems that have been proposed and studied is so great that a need is felt by many researchers (...) to try to put some order in the present logical jungle. Thus Cl91], Ep90] and Wo88] are three recent books in which an attempt is made to develop a general theoretical framework for the study of logics. On the more pragmatic side, several systems have been developed with the goal of providing a computerized logical framework in which many di erent logical systems can be implemented in a uniform way. An example is the Edinburgh LF( HHP91]). (shrink)

Who carries the burden of proof in analytic philosophical debates, and how can this burden be satisfied? As it turns out, the answer to this joint question yields a fundamental challenge to the very conduct of metaphysics in analytic philosophy. Empirical research presented in this book indicates that the vastly predominant goal pursued in analytic philosophical dialogues lies not in discovering truths or generating knowledge, but merely in prevailing over one’s opponents. Given this goal, the book examines how most (...) effectively to allocate and discharge the burden of proof. It focuses on premises that must prudently be avoided because a burden of proof on them could never be satisfied, and in particular discusses unsupportable bridge premises across inference barriers, like Hume’s barrier between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, or the barrier between the content of our talk or thought, and the world beyond such content. Employing this content/world barrier for a critical assessment of mainstream analytic philosophical methods, this book argues that we must prudently avoid invoking intuitions or other content of thought or talk in support of claims about the world beyond content, that is, metaphysically significant claims. Yet as content-located evidence is practically indispensable to metaphysical debates throughout analytic philosophy, from ethics to the philosophy of mathematics, this book reaches the startling conclusion that all such metaphysical debates must, prudently, be terminated. (shrink)

Apologies. The purpose of the following talk is to give an overview of the present state of aims, methods and results in Pure Proof Theory. Shortage of time forces me to concentrate on my very personal views. This entails that I will emphasize the work which I know best, i.e., work that has been done in the triangle Stanford, Munich and Münster. I am of course well aware that there are as important results coming from outside this triangle (...) and I apologize for not displaying these results as well.Moreover the audience should be aware that in some points I have to oversimplify matters. Those who complain about that are invited to consult the original papers.1.1. General. Proof theory startedwithHilbert's Programme which aimed at a finitistic consistency proof for mathematics.By Gödel's Theorems, however, we know that we can neither formalize all mathematics nor even prove the consistency of formalized fragments by finitistic means. Inspite of this fact I want to give some reasons why I consider proof theory in the style of Gentzen's work still as an important and exciting field of Mathematical Logic. I will not go into applications of Gentzen's cut-elimination technique to computer science problems—this may be considered as applied proof theory—but want to concentrate on metamathematical problems and results. In this sense I am talking about Pure Proof Theory.Mathematicians are interested in structures. There is only one way to find the theorems of a structure. Start with an axiom system for the structure and deduce the theorems logically. These axiom systems are the objects of proof-theoretical research. Studying axiom systems there is a series of more or less obvious questions. (shrink)

I consider two cognitive phenomena: inquiring and justifying, as complementary processes running in opposite directions. I explain on an example that the former process is driven by questions and the latter is a codification of the results of the first one. Traditionally, proof theory focuses on the latter process, and thus describes the former, at best, as an example of a backward proof search. I argue that this is not the best way to analyze cognitive processes driven by (...) questions, and that proof-theoretical analysis of questions can bring mutual benefits for both proof theory and erotetic logic. In the second part of my paper (sect. 6.3) I introduce the structural rules of weakening and contraction. Results concerning their admissibility are discussed. I also sketch an erotetic interpretation of the rule of weakening as reducing information noise, and that of contraction as securing information. (shrink)

We estimate the derivation lengths of functionals in Gödel's system \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document} of primitive recursive functionals of finite type by a purely recursion-theoretic analysis of Schütte's 1977 exposition of Howard's weak normalization proof for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document}. By using collapsing techniques from Pohlers' local predicativity approach to proof theory and based on the Buchholz-Cichon and Weiermann 1994 approach to subrecursive hierarchies we (...) define a collapsing f unction\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} ${\cal D}:T\to \omega$\end{document} so that for (closed) terms \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $a,b$\end{document} of Gödel's \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document} we have: If \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $a$\end{document} reduces to \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $b$\end{document} then \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\omega>{\cal D}(a)>{\cal D}(b).$\end{document} By one uniform proof we obtain as corollaries: A derivation lengths classification for functionals in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document}, hence new proof of strongly uniform termination of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document}. A new proof of the Kreisel's classific ation of the number-theoretic functions which can be defined in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document}, hence a classification of the provably total functions of Peano Arithmetic. A new proof of Tait's results on weak normalization for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document}. A new proof of Troelstra's result on strong normalization for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document}. Additionally, a slow growing analysis of Gödel's \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $T$\end{document} is obtained via Girard's hierarchy comparison theorem. This analyis yields a contribution to two open pro blems posed by Girard in part two of his book on proof theory. For the sake of completeness we also mention the Howard Schütte bound on derivation lengths for the simple typed \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\lambda$\end{document}-calculus. (shrink)

In view of an enhancement of our implementation on the computer, we explore the possibility of an algorithmic optimization of the various proof-theoretic techniques employed by Kohlenbach for the synthesis of new effective uniform bounds out of established qualitative proofs in Numerical Functional Analysis. Concretely, we prove that the method of “colouring” some of the quantifiers as “non-computational” extends well to ε-arithmetization, elimination-of-extensionality and model-interpretation.

Structural proof theory is a branch of logic that studies the general structure and properties of logical and mathematical proofs. This book is both a concise introduction to the central results and methods of structural proof theory, and a work of research that will be of interest to specialists. The book is designed to be used by students of philosophy, mathematics and computer science. The book contains a wealth of results on proof-theoretical systems, including extensions of (...) such systems from logic to mathematics, and on the connection between the two main forms of structural proof theory - natural deduction and sequent calculus. The authors emphasize the computational content of logical results. A special feature of the volume is a computerized system for developing proofs interactively, downloadable from the web and regularly updated. (shrink)

Abstract The paper is an attempt to interpret Imre Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP) on the basis of his mathematical methodology, the method of proofs and refutations (MPR). After sketching MSRP and MPR and analysing their relationship to Popper's and Poly a's work, I argue that MSRP was originally conceived as a methodology in the same sense as MPR. The most conspicuous difference between the two, namely that MSRP is fundamentally backward?looking, whereas MPR is primarily forward?looking, is due (...) to the fact that Lakatos could not carry out his project in the full sense. I also explain why he could not. (shrink)

This paper develops a new proof method for two propositional paraconsistent logics: the propositional part of Batens' weak paraconsistent logic CLuN and Schütte's maximally paraconsistent logic Φv. Proofs are de.ned as certain sequences of questions. The method is grounded in Inferential Erotetic Logic.

The aim of this paper is to provide epistemic reasons for investigating the notions of informal rigour and informal provability. I argue that the standard view of mathematical proof and rigour yields an implausible account of mathematical knowledge, and falls short of explaining the success of mathematical practice. I conclude that careful consideration of mathematical practice urges us to pursue a theory of informal provability.

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)

Proof-theoretic methods are developed for subsystems of Johansson’s logic obtained by extending the positive fragment of intuitionistic logic with weak negations. These methods are exploited to establish properties of the logical systems. In particular, cut-free complete sequent calculi are introduced and used to provide a proof of the fact that the systems satisfy the Craig interpolation property. Alternative versions of the calculi are later obtained by means of an appropriate loop-checking history mechanism. Termination of the new (...) calculi is proved, and used to conclude that the considered logical systems are PSPACE-complete. (shrink)

A proof method for automation of reasoning in a paraconsistent logic, the calculus C1* of da Costa, is presented. The method is analytical, using a specially designed tableau system. Actually two tableau systems were created. A first one, with a small number of rules in order to be mathematically convenient, is used to prove the soundness and the completeness of the method. The other one, which is equivalent to the former, is a system of derived rules designed to enhance (...) computational efficiency. A prototype based on this second system was effectively implemented. (shrink)

An Introduction to Proof Theory provides an accessible introduction to the theory of proofs, with details of proofs worked out and examples and exercises to aid the reader's understanding. It also serves as a companion to reading the original pathbreaking articles by Gerhard Gentzen. The first half covers topics in structural proof theory, including the Gödel-Gentzen translation of classical into intuitionistic logic, natural deduction and the normalization theorems, the sequent calculus, including cut-elimination and mid-sequent theorems, and various applications (...) of these results. The second half examines ordinal proof theory, specifically Gentzen's consistency proof for first-order Peano Arithmetic. The theory of ordinal notations and other elements of ordinal theory are developed from scratch, and no knowledge of set theory is presumed. The proof methods needed to establish proof-theoretic results, especially proof by induction, are introduced in stages throughout the text. Mancosu, Galvan, and Zach's introduction will provide a solid foundation for those looking to understand this central area of mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics. (shrink)

The role of audiences in mathematical proof has largely been neglected, in part due to misconceptions like those in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca which bar mathematical proofs from bearing reflections of audience consideration. In this paper, I argue that mathematical proof is typically argumentation and that a mathematician develops a proof with his universal audience in mind. In so doing, he creates a proof which reflects the standards of reasonableness embodied in his universal audience. Given this framework, (...) we can better understand the introduction of proof methods based on the mathematician’s likely universal audience. I examine a case study from Alexander and Briggs’s work on knot invariants to show that we can fruitfully reconstruct mathematical methods in terms of audiences. (shrink)