Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
143 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Generalisation of proof simulation procedures for Frege systems by M.L.~Bonet and S.R.~Buss (2403.09119v1)

Published 14 Mar 2024 in math.LO and cs.LO

Abstract: In this paper, we present a~generalisation of proof simulation procedures for Frege systems by Bonet and Buss to some logics for which the deduction theorem does not hold. In particular, we study the case of finite-valued \L{}ukasiewicz logics. To this end, we provide proof systems that augment Avron's Frege system for \L{}ukasiewicz three-valued logic with nested and general versions of the disjunction elimination rule, respectively. For these systems we provide upper bounds on speed-ups w.r.t.\ both the number of steps in proofs and the length of proofs. We also consider Tamminga's natural deduction and Avron's hypersequent calculus for 3-valued \L{}ukasiewicz logic and generalise our results considering the disjunction elimination rule to all finite-valued \L{}ukasiewicz logics.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (28)
  1. M.D’ Agostino. Investigations into the complexity of some propositional calculi. PhD thesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, 1990.
  2. A. Avron. Natural 3-valued logics—characterization and proof theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 56(1):276–294, 1991.
  3. Paracomplete logic Kl — Natural deduction, its automation, complexity and applications. Journal of Applied Logics — IfCoLoG Journal of Logics and their Applications, 5(1):222–262, 2018.
  4. The deduction rule and linear and near-linear proof simulations. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58(2):688–709, 1993.
  5. The serial transitive closure problem for trees. SIAM Journal of Computing, 24(1):109–122, February 1995.
  6. Samuel R. Buss. Polynomial size proofs of the propositional pigeonhole principle. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 52(4):916–927, 1987.
  7. S.R. Buss. An Introduction to Proof Theory. In S.R. Buss, editor, Handbook of Proof Theory, volume 137 of Studies in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics. Elsevier Science B.V., 1998.
  8. S. Cook and R. Reckhow. On the lengths of proofs in the propositional calculus (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing — STOC’74, New York, New York, USA, 1974. ACM Press.
  9. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. The of Journal Symbolic Logic, 44(1):36–50, March 1979.
  10. F.B Fitch. Symbolic Logic: An Introduction. The Ronald Press Company, N.Y., 1952.
  11. G Gentzen. Untersuchungen über das logische schließen. i. Mathematische zeitschrift, 35:176–210, 1935.
  12. G. Gentzen. Untersuchungen über das logische schließen. ii. Mathematische zeitschrift, 39:405–431, 1935.
  13. R. Hähnle. Complexity of many-valued logics. In M. Fitting and E. Orlowska, editors, Beyond Two: Theory and Applications of Multiple-Valued Logic, pages 211–233, Heidelberg, 2003. Springer.
  14. P. Hájek. Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic, volume 4 of Trends in Logic. Springer, Dordrecht, 1998.
  15. P. Hrubeš. A lower bound for intuitionistic logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 146(1):72–90, April 2007.
  16. P. Hrubeš. On lengths of proofs in non-classical logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 157(2–3):194–205, February 2009.
  17. A.S. Karpenko. Łukasiewicz’s logics and prime numbers. Luniver Press, 2006.
  18. S.C. Kleene. Introduction to metamathematics. Wolters-Noordhoff Publishing and North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 7th edition, 1971.
  19. D. Kozhemiachenko. Simulation of natural deduction and gentzen sequent calculus. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 27(1):67–84, 2018.
  20. F.J. Pelletier. A brief history of natural deduction. History and Philosophy of Logic, 20(1):1–31, January 1999.
  21. Y. Petrukhin and V. Shangin. Automated proof-searching for strong kleene logic and its binary extensions via correspondence analysis. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 28(2):223–257, 2019.
  22. P. Pudlák and S.R. Buss. How to lie without being (easily) convicted and the lengths of proofs in propositional calculus. In L. Pacholski and J. Tiuryn, editors, Computer Science Logic, volume 933 of Lecture notes in computer science, pages 151–162. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995.
  23. R.A. Reckhow. On the lengths of proofs in the propositional calculus. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, 1976.
  24. J.R. Shoenfield. Mathematical Logic. Addison-Wesley Series in Logic. Addison–Wesley, 1967.
  25. G. Takeuti. Proof theory, volume 81 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland, 2nd edition, 1987.
  26. A. Tamminga. Correspondence analysis for strong three-valued logic. Logical Investigations, 20:253–266, May 2014.
  27. A.S. Troelstra and H. Schwichteberg. Basic Proof Theory, volume 43 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2000.
  28. R. Tuziak. An axiomatization of the finite-valued łukasiewicz calculus. Studia Logica, 47(1):49–55, 1988.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now