Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T18:11:48.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UNIFICATION IN INTERMEDIATE LOGICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2015

ROSALIE IEMHOFF and
PAUL ROZIÈRE
ROSALIE IEMHOFF
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UTRECHT UNIVERSITY JANSKERKHOF 13 3512 BL UTRECHT THE NETHERLANDSE-mail: r.iemhoff@uu.nl
PAUL ROZIÈRE
Affiliation:
UFR DE MATHÉMATIQUES UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 7 CASE 7012 75205 PARIS CEDEX FRANCEE-mail: roziere@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper contains a proof–theoretic account of unification in intermediate logics. It is shown that many existing results can be extended to fragments that at least contain implication and conjunction. For such fragments, the connection between valuations and most general unifiers is clarified, and it is shown how from the closure of a formula under the Visser rules a proof of the formula under a projective unifier can be obtained. This implies that in the logics considered, for the n-unification type to be finitary it suffices that the m-th Visser rule is admissible for a sufficiently large m. At the end of the paper it is shown how these results imply several well-known results from the literature.

Keywords

03B2003B5503B7003F03unificationadmissible rulesintermediate logicsfragments

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , September 2015, pp. 713 - 729
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2015 

References

REFERENCES

Baader, F. and Nipkow, T., Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baader, F. and Snyder, W., Unification theory, Handbook of automated reasoning, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cintula, P. and Metcalfe, G., Structural completeness in fuzzy logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 50 (2009), no. 2, pp. 153–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cintula, P. and Metcalfe, G., Admissible Rules in the Implication-Negation Fragment of Intuitionistic Logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 162 (2010), no. 2, pp. 162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citkin, A. I., On structurally complete superintuitionistic logics. Soviet Mathematics Doklady, vol. 19 (1978), pp. 816–819.Google Scholar
Dzik, W., Splittings of Lattices of Theories and Unification Types. Proceedings of the Workshop on General Algebra, vol. 70, Verlag Johannes Heyn, Klagenfurt, 2006, pp. 71–81.Google Scholar
Dzik, W. and Wojtylak, P., Projective Unification in Modal Logic. Logic Journal of IGPL, vol. 20, (2011), no. 1, pp. 121–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzik, W. and Wronński, A., Structural completeness of Gödel and Dummett’s propositional calculi. Studia Logica, vol. 32 (1973), pp. 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbay, D. and de Jongh, D. H. J., A Sequence of Decidable Finitely Axiomatizable Intermediate Logics with the Disjunction Property, this Journal, vol. 39 (1974), no. 1, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Ghilardi, S., Unification in intuitionistic logic, this Journal vol. 64 (1999), no. 2, pp. 859–880.Google Scholar
Ghilardi, S., Best solving modal equations. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 102 (2000), pp. 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghilardi, S., A resolution/tableaux algorithm for projective approximations in IPC. Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 10 (2002), no. 3, pp. 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghilardi, S., Unification, Finite Duality and Projectivity in Varieties of Heyting Algebras. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 127 (2004), no. 1–3, pp. 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudsmit, J. G. and Iemhoff, R., On unification and admissible rules in Gabbay–de Jongh logics.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 165 (2014), no. 2, pp. 652–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iemhoff, R., On the admissible rules of intuitionistic propositional logic, this Journal, vol. 66 (2001), no. 1, pp. 281–294.Google Scholar
Iemhoff, R., A(nother) characterization of intuitionistic propositional logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 113 (2001), no. 1–3, pp. 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iemhoff, R., Intermediate logics and Visser’s rules. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 46 (2005), no. 1, pp. 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iemhoff, R., A note on consequence, Logic Group Preprint Series, vol. 314, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 2013.Google Scholar
Iemhoff, R., On Rules. Journal of Philosophical Logic, to appear.Google Scholar
Iemhoff, R., A syntactic approach to unification in transitive reflexive modal logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, to appear.Google Scholar
Iemhoff, R. and Metcalfe, G., Proof theory for admissible rules. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 159 (2009), no. 1–2, pp. 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iemhoff, R. and Metcalfe, G., Hypersequent systems for the admissible rules of modal and intermediate logics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5407, Proceedings of LFCS ’09, (Artemov, S. and Nerode, A., editors), Springer, Berlin, 2009, pp. 230–245.Google Scholar
Jeřábek, E., Admissible rules of modal logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 15 (2005),no. 4, pp. 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeřábek, E., Complexity of admissible rules. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 46 (2007), pp. 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minari, P. and Wroński, A., The property (HD) in intermediate logics: a partial solution of a problem of H. Ono. Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 22 (1988), pp. 21–25.Google Scholar
Mints, G., Derivability of admissible rules, Studies in constructive mathematics and mathematical logic, Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov POMI, vol. 32, Nauka, Leningrad, 1972, pp. 85–89.Google Scholar
Olson, J. S., Raftery, J. G., and Alten, C. J. V., Structural completeness in substructural logics.Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 16 (2008), no. 5, pp. 453–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogorzelski, W. A., Structural completeness of the propositional calculus. Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences. Série des Sciences Mathématiques, vol. 19 (1971), no. 5, pp. 349–351.Google Scholar
Prucnal, T., On the structural completeness of some pure implicational propositional calculi.Studia Logica, vol. 32 (1973), no. 1, pp. 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prucnal, T., Structural completeness of Medvedev’s propositional calculus. Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 6 (1976), pp. 103–105.Google Scholar
Prucnal, T., On two problems of Harvey Friedman. Studia Logica, vol. 38 (1979), no. 3, pp. 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozière, P., Regles admissibles en calcul propositionnel intuitionniste, Ph.D thesis, Université Paris VII, 1992.Google Scholar
Rozière, P., Admissible and derivable rules in intuitionistic logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 3 (1993), pp. 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rybakov, V., Admissibility of Logical Inference Rules, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
Rybakov, V., Writing out Best Unifiers in Intuitionistic Logic for Formulas with Coefficients. Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 21 (2013), no. 2, pp. 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, F. and Zakharyaschev, M., Undecidability of the Unification and Admissibility Problems for Modal and Description Logics. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, vol. 9 (2008), no. 4, article 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wroński, A., Transparent Unification Problem. Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 29 (1995pp. 105–107.Google Scholar