Canonical proof nets for classical logic

Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that (a) there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, (b) it should be possible to check the correctness of a net in polynomial time, (c) every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and (d) there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness. Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In Richard McKinley (2010) [22], the author presented a calculus of proof nets (expansion nets) satisfying (a) and (b); the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of (c). That sequent calculus, called LK∗ in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper (a self-contained extended version of Richard McKinley (2010) [22]), we give a full proof of (c) for expansion nets with respect to LK∗, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets – this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria.

Skolemization for Substructural Logics

The usual Skolemization procedure, which removes strong quantifiers by introducing new function symbols, is in general unsound for first-order substructural logics defined based on classes of complete residuated lattices. However, it is shown here (following similar ideas of Baaz and Iemhoff for first-order intermediate logics in [1]) that first-order substructural logics with a semantics satisfying certain witnessing conditions admit a “parallel” Skolemization procedure where a strong quantifier is removed by introducing a finite disjunction or conjunction (as appropriate) of formulas with multiple new function symbols. These logics typically lack equivalent prenex forms. Also, semantic consequence does not in general reduce to satisfiability. The Skolemization theorems presented here therefore take various forms, applying to the left or right of the consequence relation, and to all formulas or only prenex formulas.