Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Proof-theoretic Semantics for the Logic of Bunched Implications

Published 28 Nov 2023 in cs.LO and math.LO | (2311.16719v2)

Abstract: The logic of bunched implications (BI) can be seen as the free combination of intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) and intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic (IMLL). We present here a base-extension semantics (B-eS) for BI in the spirit of Sandqvist's B-eS for IPL, deferring an analysis of proof-theoretic validity, in the sense of Dummett and Prawitz, to another occasion. Essential to BI's formulation in proof-theoretic terms is the concept of a bunch' of hypotheses that is familiar from relevance logic. Bunches amount to trees whose internal vertices are labelled with either the IMLL context-former or the IPL context-former and whose leaves are labelled with propositions or units for the context-formers. This structure presents significant technical challenges in setting up a base-extension semantics for BI. Our approach starts from the B-eS for IPL and the B-eS for IMLL and provides a systematic combination. Such a combination requires that base rules carry bunched structure, and so requires a more complex notion of derivability in a base and a correspondingly richer notion of support in a base. One reason why BI is a substructural logic of interest is that theresource interpretation' of its semantics, given in terms of sharing and separation and which gives rise to Separation Logic in the field of program verification, is quite distinct from the `number-of-uses' reading of the propositions of linear logic as resources. This resource reading of BI provides useful intuitions in the formulation of its proof-theoretic semantics. We discuss a simple example of the use of the given B-eS in security modelling.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (9)
  1. Abadi, M.: Logic in Access Control. In: Logic in Computer Science — LICS. pp. 228–233. IEEE (2003)
  2. Brandom, R.: Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Harvard University Press (2000)
  3. Dummett, M.: The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Harvard University Press (1991)
  4. Goldfarb, W.: On Dummett’s “Proof-theoretic Justifications of Logical Laws”. In: Advances in Proof-theoretic Semantics, pp. 195–210. Springer (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6_13
  5. Prawitz, D.: Natural Deduction: A Proof-theoretical Study. Courier Dover Publications (2006 [1965]). https://doi.org/10.2307/2271676
  6. Read, S.: Relevant Logic. Basil Blackwell (1988). https://doi.org/10.2307/2219818
  7. Reynolds, J.C.: Separation Logic: A Logic for Shared Mutable Data Structures. In: Logic in Computer Science — LICS. pp. 55–74. Springer (2002). https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2002.1029817
  8. Szabo, M.E. (ed.): The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen. North-Holland Publishing Company (1969). https://doi.org/10.2307/2272429
  9. Tarski, A.: O pojȩciu wynikania logicznego. Przegla̧d Filozoficzny 39 (1936)
Citations (7)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.