Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T16:30:54.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A phase semantics for polarized linear logic and second order conservativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Masahiro Hamano and
Ryo Takemura
Masahiro Hamano
Affiliation:
Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Math Bio Unit, 12-2 Suzaki, Uruma, Okinawa, 904-2234, Japan, E-mail: hamano@oist.jp
Ryo Takemura
Affiliation:
Keio University, Department of Philosophy, 2-15-45 Mita, Minato-Ku, Tokyo 108-8345, Japan, E-mail: takemura@abelard.flet.keio.ac.jp
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a polarized phase semantics, with respect to which the linear fragment of second order polarized linear logic of Laurent [15] is complete. This is done by adding a topological structure to Girard's phase semantics [9], The topological structure results naturally from the categorical construction developed by Hamano–Scott [12]. The polarity shifting operator ↓ (resp. ↑) is interpreted as an interior (resp. closure) operator in such a manner that positive (resp. negative) formulas correspond to open (resp. closed) facts. By accommodating the exponentials of linear logic, our model is extended to the polarized fragment of the second order linear logic. Strong forms of completeness theorems are given to yield cut-eliminations for the both second order systems. As an application of our semantics, the first order conservativity of linear logic is studied over its polarized fragment of Laurent [16]. Using a counter model construction, the extension of this conservativity is shown to fail into the second order, whose solution is posed as an open problem in [16]. After this negative result, a second order conservativity theorem is proved for an eta expanded fragment of the second order linear logic, which fragment retains a focalized sequent property of [3].

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , March 2010, pp. 77 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (19540145) of JSPS.

**

Supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Abrusci, V. Michele, Sequent calculus for intuitionistic linear propositional logic, Mathematical Logic, Plenum, New York, 1990, pp. 223–242.Google Scholar
[2] Abrusci, V. Michele, Phase semantics and sequent calculus for pure noncommutative classical linear propositional logic, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), no. 4, pp. 1403–1451.Google Scholar
[3] Andreoli, Jean-Marc, Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 2 (1992), no. 3, pp. 297–347.Google Scholar
[4] Andreoli, Jean-Marc and Maieli, Roberto, Focusing and proof-nets in linear and non-commutative logic, Logic programming and automated reasoning, 1999, pp. 321–336.Google Scholar
[5] Bucciarelli, Antonio and Ehrhard, Thomas, On phase semantics and denotational semantics in multiplicative-additive linear logic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 102 (2000), no. 3, pp. 247–282.Google Scholar
[6] Curien, Pierre-Louis and Faggian, Claudia, L-nets, strategies and proof-nets, Computer Science Logic 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2005, pp. 167–183.Google Scholar
[7] Danos, Vincent, Joinet, Jean-Baptiste, and Schellinx, Harold, A new deconstructive logic: Linear logic, this Journal, vol. 62 (1997), no. 3, pp. 755–807.Google Scholar
[8] Ehrhard, Thomas, A completeness theorem for symmetric product phase spaces, this Journal, vol. 69 (2004), no. 2, pp. 340–370.Google Scholar
[9] Girard, Jean-Yves, Linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 50 (1987), pp. 1–102.Google Scholar
[10] Girard, Jean-Yves, A new constructive logic: Classical logic, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 1 (1991), no. 3, pp. 255–296.Google Scholar
[11] Girard, Jean-Yves, Locus solum. From the rules of logic to the logic of rules, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 11 (2001), no. 3, pp. 301–506.Google Scholar
[12] Hamano, Masahiro and Scott, Philip, A categorical semantics for Polarized MALL, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 145 (2007), pp. 276–313.Google Scholar
[13] Hamano, Masahiro and Takemura, Ryo, An indexed system for multiplicative additive polarized linear logic, Computer Science Logic 2008, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5213, Springer Verlag, 2008, pp. 262–277.Google Scholar
[14] Lafont, Yves, The finite model property for various fragments of linear logic, this Journal, vol. 62 (1997), no. 4, pp. 1202–1208.Google Scholar
[15] Laurent, Olivier, Polarized proof-nets: Proof-nets for LC, Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications (TLCA), 1999, pp. 213–227.Google Scholar
[16] Laurent, Olivier, Étude de la polarisation en logique, Ph.D. thesis, Institut de Mathématiques de Luminy, Université Aix-Marseille II, 2002.Google Scholar
[17] Laurent, Olivier, A proof of the focalization property of linear logic, 2005, draft.Google Scholar
[18] Laurent, Olivier, Syntax vs. semantics: A polarized approach, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 343 (2005), no. 1–2, pp. 177–206.Google Scholar
[19] Laurent, Olivier and Falco, Lorenzo Tortora de, Slicing polarized additive normalization, Linear Logic in Computer Science (Ehrhard, T., Girard, J.-Y., Ruet, P., and Scott, P., editors), LMS Lecture Series, vol. 316, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 247–282.Google Scholar
[20] Melliès, Paul-André, Categorical models of linear logic revisited, Theoretical Computer Science, to appear, prépublication de l'équipe PPS (09 2003, number 22).Google Scholar
[21] Melliès, Paul-André, Asynchronous games 3, An innocent model of linear logic, in CTCS04, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, (2005).Google Scholar
[22] Melliès, Paul-André and Tabareau, Nicolas, Resource modalities in game semantics, Proceedings of the Conference on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2007.Google Scholar
[23] Miller, Dale, An overview of linear logic programming, Linear Logic in Computer Science (Ehrhard, T., Girard, J.-Y, Ruet, P., and Scott, P., editors), LMS Lecture Series, vol. 316, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 119–150.Google Scholar
[24] Okada, Mitsuhiro, Phase semantic cut-elimination and normalization proofs of first- and higher-order linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 227 (1999), no. 1–2, pp. 333–396.Google Scholar
[25] Okada, Mitsuhiro and Terui, Kazushige, The finite model property for various fragments of intuitionistic linear logic, this Journal, vol. 64 (1999), pp. 790–802.Google Scholar
[26] Ono, Hiroakira, Semantics for substructural logics, Substructural Logics (Došen, K. and Schroeder-Heister, P., editors), Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 259–291.Google Scholar
[27] Prawitz, Dag, Natural Deduction - A Proof Theoretical Study, Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
[28] Sambin, Giovanni, Pretopologies and completeness proofs, this Journal, vol. 60 (1995), no. 3, pp. 861–878.Google Scholar
[29] Seely, R. A. G., Linear logic, *-autonomous categories and cofree coalgebras, Categories in Computer Science and Logic (Gray, J. and Scedrov, A., editors), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 92, 1989, pp. 371–382.Google Scholar
[30] Selinger, Peter, Control categories and duality: On the categorical semantics of the lambda-mucalculus, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 11 (2001), pp. 207–260.Google Scholar
[31] Terui, Kazushige, Which structural rules admit cut elimination? — An algebraic criterion, this Journal, vol. 72 (2007), no. 3, pp. 738–754.Google Scholar
[32] Troelstra, A. S., Lectures on Linear Logic, CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 29, Stanford, 1992.Google Scholar