Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?
De : janburse (at) *nospam* fastmail.fm (Mild Shock)
Groupes : sci.logic
Date : 28. Nov 2024, 02:38:26
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <vi8hij$gi0t$1@solani.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
In affine logic you can possibly do something like iterative
deepening, only its iterative contraction.
Define A^n o- B as:
A o- A o- .. A o- B
\-- n times --/
The running the prover with this notation:
A -> B  := A^n o- B
repeatedly with increasing n .
Mild Shock schrieb:
 But in a linear logic you can do
intuitionistic logic by using this notation:
      A -> B := !A o- B
 BTW: There are alternative approaches to
directly find a notation for classical implication
in linear logic, without the need for Glivenkos theorem.
 Just put an eye here:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic#Encoding_classical/intuitionistic_logic_in_linear_logic   Julio Di Egidio schrieb:
On 28/11/2024 00:55, Mild Shock wrote:
This is Peirce law:
((p->q)->p)->p
Peirce law is not provable in minimal logic.
>
But I guess this is not Glivenko:
notation(dnt(X), ~X->(~(~X)))
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-negation_translation#Propositional_logic >
>
Glivenko would be simply:
notation(gliv(X), (~(~X)))
>
Indeed Glivenko's is to embed classical into intuitionistic, not into linear (or affine).
>
OTOH, you can try the code yourself: with that 'dnt' the solver solves all the classical theorems I have been able to think about, Pierce's law included, otherwise it fails: because of linearity essentially, i.e. not enough hypotheses...
<https://gist.github.com/jp-diegidio/b6a7a071f9f81a469c493c4afcc5cb11>
>
That said, that 'dnt' is almost surely not really correct, indeed maybe it only works for me because my reduction rules are linear (affine actually), yet my operators for now are only the intuitionistic ones, I do not have the whole set of linear operators.
>
Here are lecture notes that maybe have a complete answer/recipe, see from page 5, but I still cannot fully parse what they write:
<https://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Efp/courses/15816-f16/lectures/27-classical.pdf> >
>
Meanwhile, you might have seen it, I have also asked on SE:
<https://proofassistants.stackexchange.com/questions/4455/negative-translation-for-linear-propositional-logic> >
>
-Julio
>
 

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Nov 24 * How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?34Julio Di Egidio
18 Nov 24 +* Re: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?26Mild Shock
18 Nov 24 i`* Re: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?25Julio Di Egidio
19 Nov 24 i `* can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)24Mild Shock
19 Nov 24 i  `* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)23Julio Di Egidio
19 Nov 24 i   `* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)22Mild Shock
22 Nov 24 i    `* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)21Julio Di Egidio
22 Nov 24 i     +* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)5Julio Di Egidio
27 Nov 24 i     i`* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)4Ross Finlayson
27 Nov 24 i     i `* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)3Julio Di Egidio
27 Nov 24 i     i  `* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)2Ross Finlayson
27 Nov 24 i     i   `- Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)1Julio Di Egidio
28 Nov 24 i     `* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)15Mild Shock
28 Nov 24 i      +* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)2Mild Shock
28 Nov 24 i      i`- Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)1Mild Shock
28 Nov 24 i      +* Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?10Julio Di Egidio
28 Nov 24 i      i+- Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?1Julio Di Egidio
28 Nov 24 i      i`* Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?8Mild Shock
28 Nov 24 i      i `* Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?7Mild Shock
28 Nov 24 i      i  `* Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?6Julio Di Egidio
28 Nov 24 i      i   `* Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?5Mild Shock
28 Nov 24 i      i    `* Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?4Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i      i     `* Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?3Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 i      i      `* Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?2Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i      i       `- Re: Negative translation for propositional linear (or affine) logic?1Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 i      `* Re: can λ-prolog do it? (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)2Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 i       `- I am busy with other stuff (Was: can λ-prolog do it?)1Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 `* Andrej Bauer is a red flag (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)7Mild Shock
1 Dec 24  +- Re: Andrej Bauer is a red flag (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)1Mild Shock
1 Dec 24  `* Re: Andrej Bauer is a red flag (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)5Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24   `* Re: Andrej Bauer is a red flag (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)4Mild Shock
1 Dec 24    `* Re: Andrej Bauer is a red flag (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)3Mild Shock
1 Dec 24     `* Re: Andrej Bauer is a red flag (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)2Mild Shock
1 Dec 24      `- Re: Andrej Bauer is a red flag (Was: How to prove this theorem with intuitionistic natural deduction?)1Mild Shock

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal