Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 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

Multi-modalities and non-commutativity/associativity in functorial linear logic: a case study (2404.11445v1)

Published 17 Apr 2024 in cs.LO

Abstract: Similar to modal connectives, the exponential ! in intuitionistic linear logic (ILL) is not canonical, in the sense that if $i\not= j$ then $!i F\not\equiv !j F$. Intuitively, this means that we can mark the exponential with labels taken from a set I organized in a pre-order $\preceq$, obtaining (possibly infinitely-many) exponentials ($!i$ for $i\in I$). There are, however, two main differences between multi-modalities in normal modal logics and subexponentials in linear logic. i. substructural behaviour. Subexponentials carry the possibility of having different structural behaviors; ii. nature of modalities. Normal modal logics start from the weakest version, assuming only axiom K, then extensions are considered, by adding other axioms. Exponentials in linear logic "take for granted" the behaviors expressed by axioms T and 4. Regarding (i), originally subexponentials could assume only weakening and contraction axioms, but later non-commutative/non-associative systems allowing commutative/ associative subexponentials were presented. Concerning (ii), Guerrini et al unified the modal and LL approaches, with the exponentials assuming only the linear version of K, with the possibility of adding modal extensions to it. This discussion was brought to multi-modal case, where subexponentials consider not only the structural axioms for contraction and weakening, but also the subexponential version of axioms {K,4,D,T}. In this work, we intend to join these two studies. This means that $!{i}$ can behave classically or not, model associative and commutative systems or not, but also with exponential behaviors different from those in LL. Hence, by assigning different modal axioms one obtains, in a modular way, a class of different substructural modal logics.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (14)
  1. In Jasmin Blanchette, Laura Kovács & Dirk Pattinson, editors: Automated Reasoning - 11th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2022, Haifa, Israel, August 8-10, 2022, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 13385, Springer, pp. 449–467.
  2. Vincent Danos, Jean-Baptiste Joinet & Harold Schellinx (1993): The Structure of Exponentials: Uncovering the Dynamics of Linear Logic Proofs. In Georg Gottlob, Alexander Leitsch & Daniele Mundici, editors: Kurt Gödel Colloquium, LNCS 713, Springer, pp. 159–171.
  3. Stefano Guerrini, Simone Martini & Andrea Masini (1998): An Analysis of (Linear) Exponentials Based on Extended Sequents. Logic Journal of the IGPL 6(5), pp. 735–753.
  4. In Didier Galmiche, Stephan Schulz & Roberto Sebastiani, editors: Automated Reasoning - 9th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2018, Held as Part of the Federated Logic Conference, FloC 2018, Oxford, UK, July 14-17, 2018, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10900, Springer, pp. 228–245.
  5. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 29(8), pp. 1217–1249.
  6. Björn Lellmann (2015): Linear Nested Sequents, 2-Sequents and Hypersequents. In: 24th TABLEAUX, pp. 135–150.
  7. Björn Lellmann, Carlos Olarte & Elaine Pimentel (2017): A uniform framework for substructural logics with modalities. In: LPAR-21, pp. 435–455.
  8. Björn Lellmann & Elaine Pimentel (2019): Modularisation of sequent calculi for normal and non-normal modalities. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL) 20(2), p. 7.
  9. Dale Miller & Elaine Pimentel (2013): A formal framework for specifying sequent calculus proof systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 474, pp. 98–116, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2012.12.008. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2012.12.008.
  10. Vivek Nigam & Dale Miller (2010): A framework for proof systems. J. of Automated Reasoning 45(2), pp. 157–188, doi:10.1007/s10817-010-9182-1. Available at http://springerlink.com/content/m12014474287n423/.
  11. Theor. Comput. Sci. 693, pp. 35–58, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2017.06.009. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2017.06.009.
  12. Vivek Nigam, Elaine Pimentel & Giselle Reis (2016): An extended framework for specifying and reasoning about proof systems. J. Log. Comput. 26(2), pp. 539–576, doi:10.1093/logcom/exu029. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exu029.
  13. Elaine Pimentel, Carlos Olarte & Vivek Nigam (2021): Process-As-Formula Interpretation: A Substructural Multimodal View (Invited Talk). In Naoki Kobayashi, editor: 6th International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction, FSCD 2021, July 17-24, 2021, Buenos Aires, Argentina (Virtual Conference), LIPIcs 195, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, pp. 3:1–3:21, doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2021.3. Available at https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2021.3.
  14. Bruno Xavier, Carlos Olarte & Elaine Pimentel (2022): A linear logic framework for multimodal logics. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 32(9), pp. 1176–1204, doi:10.1017/S0960129522000366. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129522000366.

Summary

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

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com