[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Cut-Elimination in Linear Logic
[----- The Types Forum, http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/types -----]
Thanks to Frank and Sanjiva for replies.
In the example I gave, Cut elimination can be performed by commuting
the right-hand tree to the top of the left-hand tree. This is
possible because the Cut is against a side-formula in the right-hand
tree. (A Cut against a formula of the form !B must be against a
side-formula or against the principle formula of !R, and the latter
case is easy.)
B;|-;B B;|-;B
------------Dereliction
------------Dereliction
;B|-;B ;B|-;B
--------------!R
--------------!R
;B|-;!B ;B|-;!B
----------------------------------------------------------otimes-R
A;|-;A !B;|-;!B ;B|-;!B otimes !B
------------------------------------ -oE
------------------------------------!L
A,A-o!B;|-;!B !B;|-;!B otimes !B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------Cut
A,A-o!B;|-;!B
becomes
B;|-;B B;|-;B
------------Dereliction ------------Dereliction
;B|-;B ;B|-;B
--------------!R --------------!R
;B|-;!B ;B|-;!B
----------------------------------------------------------otimes-R
;B|-;!B otimes !B
------------------------------------!L
A;|-;A !B;|-;!B otimes !B
------------------------------------------------------------ -oE
A,A-o!B;|-;!B otimes !B
> I think I understand what LU fragment you're looking at
> (Neutral+Positive
> Int. Logic), so I think it it somewhat incorrect to say you don't
> have polarities -- you have !A, which is positive.
> I guess you mean that all atomic formulae are of neutral polarity,
> and all positive formulae are obtained by the !-L and !-R rules.
What I meant is that I did not include Girard's rules which refer to
the polarities:
G;G'|-D',N;D
------------------------
G;G'|-D';N,D
G;P,G'|-D';D
------------------------
G,P;G'|-D';D
where N has negative polarity and P has positive polarity.
Frank does not have these in his system LV, which is a variant of LU.
So far as I can see, these rules don't allow you to derive more
sequents.
Instead, their purpose is to allow the classical connective A wedge B,
which is roughly the same as !A otimes !B, to be given a definition that
is clearly associative. Is that right?
Cheers, -- P
Follow-Ups:
References: