Home

Correspondences between gentzen and hilbert systems

Extract

Most Gentzen systems arising in logic contain few axiom schemata and many rule schemata. Hilbert systems, on the other hand, usually contain few proper inference rules and possibly many axioms. Because of this, the two notions tend to serve different purposes. It is common for a logic to be specified in the first instance by means of a Gentzen calculus, whereupon a Hilbert-style presentation ‘for’ the logic may be sought—or vice versa. Where this has occurred, the word ‘for’ has taken on several different meanings, partly because the Gentzen separator ⇒ can be interpreted intuitively in a number of ways. Here ⇒ will be denoted less evocatively by ⊲.

In this paper we aim to discuss some of the useful ways in which Gentzen and Hilbert systems may correspond to each other. Actually, we shall be concerned with the deducibility relations of the formal systems, as it is these that are susceptible to transformation in useful ways. To avoid potential confusion, we shall speak of Hilbert and Gentzen relations. By a Hilbert relation we mean any substitution-invariant consequence relation on formulas—this comes to the same thing as the deducibility relation of a set of Hilbert-style axioms and rules. By a Gentzen relation we mean the fully fledged generalization of this notion in which sequents take the place of single formulas. In the literature, Hilbert relations are often referred to as sentential logics. Gentzen relations as defined here are their exact sequential counterparts.

References

Hide All
[1]Adillon, R. J. and Verdú, V., On a contraction-less intuitionistic propositional logic with conjunction and fusion, Studia Logica, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 1130.
[2]Ardeshir, M. and Ruitenberg, W., Basic propositional calculus I, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 44 (1998), pp. 317343.
[3]Avron, A., The semantics and proof theory of linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 57 (1988), pp. 161184.
[4]Babyonyshev, S. V., Metatheories of deductive systems, Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University, 2005.
[5]Blok, W. J. and Hoogland, E., The Beth property in algebraic logic, Studia Logica, vol. 83 (2006), in press.
[6]Blok, W. J. and Jónsson, B., Algebraic structures for logic, a course given at the 23rd Holiday Mathematics Symposium, New Mexico State University, January 1999. Available at http://math.nmsu.edu/holysymp/.
[7]Blok, W. J. and Jónsson, B., Equivalence of consequence operations, Studia Logica, vol. 83 (2006), in press.
[8]Blok, W. J., Köhler, R, and Pigozzi, D., The algebraization of logic, manuscript, 1983.
[9]Blok, W. J. and Pigozzi, D., Protoalgebraic logics, Studia Logica, vol. 45 (1986), pp. 337369.
[10]Blok, W. J. and Pigozzi, D., Algebraizable logics, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, (1989), no. 396.
[11]Blok, W. J. and Pigozzi, D., Local deduction theorems in algebraic logic, Algebraic logic (Proc. Conf., Budapest, 8–14 August 1988), Colloquia Mathematica Societatis JÂnos Bolyai (Andréka, H., Monk, J. D., and Nemeti, I., editors), vol. 54, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 75109.
[12]Blok, W. J. and Pigozzi, D., Algebraic semantics for universal Horn logic without equality, Universal algebra and quasigroup theory (Smith, J. D. H. and Romanowska, A., editors), Research and Exposition in Mathematics, vol. 19, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1992, pp. 156.
[13]Blok, W. J. and Pigozzi, D., Abstract algebraic logic and the deduction theorem, manuscript, 1997, [See http://orion.math.iastate.edu/dpigozzi/ for updated version, 2001.].
[14]Blok, W. J. and Raftery, J. G., Assertionally equivalent quasivarieties, manuscript.
[15]Blok, W. J. and Raftery, J. G., Ideals in quasivarieties of algebras, Models, algebras and proofs (Caicedo, X. and Montenegro, C. H., editors), Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, no. 203, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 167186.
[16]Blok, W. J. and Raftery, J. G., On congruence modularity in varieties of logic, Algebra Universalis, vol. 45 (2001), pp. 1521.
[17]Blok, W. J. and Rebagliato, J., Algebraic semantics for deductive systems, Studio Logica, vol. 74 (2003), pp. 153180.
[18]Bloom, S. L., Some theorems on structural consequence relations, Studia Logica, vol. 34 (1975), pp. 19.
[19]Bou, F., García-Cerdaña, À., and Verdú, V., On two fragments with negation and without implication of the logic of residuated lattices, Archive for Mathematical Logic, to appear.
[20]Celani, S. and Jansana, R., A closer look at some subintuitionistic logics, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 42 (2001), no. 4, pp. 225255.
[21]Czelakowski, J., Protoalgebraic logics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001.
[22]Czelakowski, J., The Suszko operator. Part I, Studia Logica, vol. 74 (2003), pp. 181231.
[23]Czelakowski, J. and Jansana, R., Weakly algebraizable logics, this Journal, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 641668.
[24]Czelakowski, J. and Pigozzi, D., Amalgamation and interpolation in abstract algebraic logic, Models, algebras and proofs (Caicedo, X. and Montenegro, C. H., editors), Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, no. 203, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 187265.
[25]Dellunde, P., A finitary 1 –equivalential logic not finitely equivalential, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, vol. 24 (1995), no. 3, pp. 120122.
[26]Dellunde, P., Contributions to the model theory of equality-free logic, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Barcelona, 1996.
[27]Dellunde, P. and Jansana, R., Some characterization theorems for infinitary universal Horn logic without equality, this Journal, vol. 61 (1996), pp. 12421260.
[28]Dunn, J. M., Partial gaggles applied to logics with restricted structural rules, Substructural logics (Schroeder-Heister, P. and Došen, K., editors), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993, pp. 63108.
[29]Elgueta, R., Algebraic model theory for languages without equality. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Barcelona, 1994.
[30]Font, J. M. and Jansana, R., A general algebraic semantics for sentential logics, Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 7, Springer-Verlag, 1996.
[31]Font, J. M., Jansana, R., and Pigozzi, D., Fully adequate Gentzen systems and the deduction theorem, Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 35 (2001), pp. 115165.
[32]Font, J. M., Jansana, R., and Pigozzi, D., A survey of abstract algebraic logic, Studia Logica, vol. 74 (2003), pp. 1397.
[33]Font, J. M., Jansana, R., and Pigozzi, D., On the closure properties of the class of full g-models of a deductive system, Studia Logica, vol. 83 (2006), in press.
[34]Font, J. M. and Verdú, V., Algebraic logic for classical conjunction and disjunction, Studia Logica, vol. 50 (1991), pp. 391419.
[35]Galatos, N. and Ono, H., Cut elimination and strong separation for substructural logics: an algebraic approach, manuscript.
[36]Galatos, N. and Ono, H., Algebraization, parametrized local deduction theorem and interpolation for substructural logics over FL, Studia Logica, vol. 83 (2006), in press.
[37]Galatos, N. and Tsinakis, C., Equivalence of consequence relations: An order-theoretic and categorical perspective, in preparation.
[38]Gil, A. J. and Rebagliato, J., Protoalgebraic Gentzen systems and the cut rule, Studia Logica, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 5389.
[39]Gil-Férez, J., Categorical abstract algebraic logic: the isomorphism theorem (abstract), Algebraic and Topological Methods in Non-Classical Logics II, Barcelona, 15–18 June, 2005.
[40]Gyuris, V., Variations of algebraizability, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999.
[41]Hart, J., Rafter, L., and Tsinakis, C., The structure of commutative residuated lattices, International Journal of Algebra and Computation, vol. 12 (2002), pp. 509524.
[42]Herrmann, B., Equivalential and algebraizable logics, Studia Logica, vol. 57 (1996), pp. 419436.
[43]Herrmann, B., Characterizing equivalential and algebraizable logics by the Leibniz operator, Studia Logica, vol. 58 (1997), pp. 305323.
[44]Kearnes, K. A. and Szendrei, A., The relationship between two commutators, International Journal of Algebra and Computation, vol. 8 (1998), pp. 497531.
[45]Lewin, R., Mikenberg, I. F., and Schwarze, M. G., On the algebraizability of annotated logics, Studio Logica, vol. 57 (1997), pp. 359386.
[46]Łoś, J. and Suszko, R., Remarks on sentential logics, Proceedings of Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series A, vol. 61 (1958), pp. 177183.
[47]Ono, H., Proof-theoretic methods in nonclassical logic—an introduction, Theories of types and proofs, MSJ memoirs 2 (Takahashi, M., Okada, M., and Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., editors), Mathematical Society of Japan, 1998, pp. 207254.
[48]Ono, H., Substructural logics and residuated lattices—an introduction, 50 years of Studia Logica (Hendricks, V. F. and Malinowski, J., editors), Trends in Logic, vol. 20, Kluwer, 2003, pp. 177212.
[49]Pałasińska, K., Deductive systems and finite axiomatization properties, Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University, 1994.
[50]Pałasińska, K., Finite basis theorem for filter-distributive protoalgebraic deductive systems and strict universal Horn classes, Studia Logica, vol. 74 (2003), pp. 233273.
[51]Pałasińska, K. and Pigozzi, D., Implication in abstract algebraic logic, manuscript, 1995.
[52]Pigozzi, D., A lattice-theoretic characterization of equivalent quasivarieties, Proceedings of the International Conference on Algebra, Part 3 (Novosibirsk, 1989), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1992, pp. 187199.
[53]Pigozzi, D., Abstract algebraic logic, Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, supplement III(Hazewinkel, M., editor), Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001, pp. 213.
[54]Pigozzi, D., Partially ordered varieties and quasivarieties, manuscript, 2004.
[55]Pynko, A. P., Definitional equivalence and algebraizability of generalized logical systems, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 98 (1999), pp. 168.
[56]Raftery, J. G., The equational definability of truth predicates, Special issue of Reports on Mathematical Logic in memory of W. J. Blok, (to appear).
[57]Rebagliato, J. and Verdú, V., Algebraizable Gentzen systems and the deduction theorem for Gentzen systems, Mathematics Preprint Series No. 175 (June 1995), University of Barcelona.
[58]Rebagliato, J. and Verdú, V., On the algebraization of some Gentzen systems, Fundamenta Informaticae, vol. 18 (1993), pp. 319338.
[59]Rybakov, V. V., Admissibility of logical inference rules, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 136, Elsevier, 1997.
[60]Suzuki, Y., Wolter, F., and Zakharyaschev, M., Speaking about transitive frames in propositional languages, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 7 (1998), pp. 317339.
[61]Torrens, A., Multi-dimensional deductive systems, manuscript, 1991.
[62]Troelstra, A. S., Lectures on linear logic, Csli Lecture Notes, no. 29, 1992.
[63]Alten, C. J. Van and Raftery, J. G., Rule separation and embedding theorems for logics without weakening, Studia Logica, vol. 76 (2004), pp. 241274.
[64]Visser, A., A propositional logic with explicit fixed points, Studia Logica, vol. 40 (1981), pp. 155175.
[65]Voutsadakis, G., Categorical abstract algebraic logic: equivalent institutions, Studia Logica, vol. 74 (2003), pp. 275311.
[66]Wójcicki, R., Theory of logical calculi, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1988.

Correspondences between gentzen and hilbert systems

Metrics

Full text viewsFull text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *