on hypersequents and labelled sequentslengrand/events/dyckhoff/slides/rothenberg.pdfon hypersequents...
TRANSCRIPT
On Hypersequents and Labelled SequentsTranslating Labelled Sequent Proofs to Hypersequent Proofs
Robert Rothenberg 1 2
1School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St Andrews
2Interactive Information, LtdEdinburgh
Workshop in Honour of Roy DyckhoffSt Andrews, 18-19 November 2011
Extensions of Gentzen-style Sequent Calculi
Extensions to Gentzen-style sequent calculi obtained by changingto specific syntactic features [Paoli] in order to control proof searchfor non-classical logics, such as:
I Labelled Systems
I Multiple Sequents (e.g. higher-order sequents, hypersequents)
I Multi-sided Sequents
I Multi-arrow Sequents (e.g. sequents of relations)
I Multi-comma Systems (e.g. Display Logics)
I Deep Inference Systems (e.g. Calculus of Structures)
Many systems are hybrids of these, such as nested sequents orrelational hypersequents.
Why Compare Formalisms?
I Interface vs implementation (automated proof assistants)
I Translating proofs of meta properties.
I Novel and interesting rules obtained from other formalisms.
I Formal criteria for comparing formalisms.
I Illuminate the meaning of particular syntactic features.
I Use abstraction to conceive of new extensions? (akin tojuggling notation...)
I Develop a hierarchy of the strength of proof systems.
Why Compare Labelled Sequents and Hypersequents?
I Folklore about relationship, but no published formalcomparison beyond specific calculi (mainly for S5).
I There are labelled and hypersequent calculi for overlappingsets of logics. (Here we look at some Int∗ logics.)
I A comparison of the rules for some logics suggests arelationship. . .
Labelled Systems
I First labelled systems apparently introduced by [Kanger, 1957]for S5 and [Maslov, 1967] for Int.
I The language of formulae is extended with a language ofannotations to control inference, e.g.
Γ⇒∆, Ay
Γ⇒∆,�Ax R�
where y is fresh for the conclusion.
I Additional kinds of formulae based on labels may be used forcontrolling inference, e.g. Rxy.
I Easily obtained using the relational semantics of a logic.
Syntax of Labelled Sequents
I Formulae in a sequent are annotated with labels, e.g. Ax.
Γx11 , . . . ,Γxn
n ⇒∆x11 , . . . ,∆xn
n
I Sequents may also contain relational formulae whichindicate a relationship between labels , e.g. Rxy.
Rxi1xj1 , . . . ,Rxikxjk ,Γx11 , . . . ,Γxn
n ⇒∆x11 , . . . ,∆xn
n
I In some calculi, labels may be complex expressions, or maycontain variables. . .
I . . . relational formulae may be n-ary, occur on either side, oreven be “first class” and combined with formulae, e.g.Rxy ∧ (A ∨B)x.
The Simple Relational Calculus G3I
I A labelled calculus with atomic labels and binary relations.I A fragment of the calculus G3I from [Negri, 2005]:
Rxy,Σ;P x,Γ⇒∆, P y
Rxy,Σ; (A⊃B)x,Γ⇒∆, Ay Rxy,Σ; (A⊃B)x, By,Γ⇒∆
Rxy,Σ; (A⊃B)x,Γ⇒∆L⊃
Rxy,Σ;Ay,Γ⇒∆, By
Σ; Γ⇒∆, (A⊃B)xR⊃
The rules for ∧, ∨ and ⊥ are standard.I The pure relational rules (or “ordering rules”):
Rxx,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Σ; Γ⇒∆refl
Rxz,Rxy,Ryz,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Rxy,Ryz,Σ; Γ⇒∆trans
A Similar Calculus for BiInt
[Pinto & Uustalu, 2009] give a similar calculus for BiInt, with(aside from the dual of⊃) contraction as a primitive rule andreplacing the axiom with
Σ;Ax,Γ⇒∆, Ax
Rxy,Σ;Ax, Ay,Γ⇒∆
Rxy,Σ;Ax,Γ⇒∆Lmono
Rxy,Σ; Γ⇒∆, Ax, Ay
Rxy,Σ; Γ⇒∆, Ay Rmono
The mono rules are derivable in G3I using cut, e.g.:
....Rxy,Σ;Ax,Γ⇒∆, Ay Rxy,Σ;Ax, Ay,Γ⇒∆
Rxy,Σ;Ax,Γ⇒∆cut
Geometric Rules
I A geometric rule is a G3-style rule of the form
[ˆz/y]Σ1,Σ0,Γ⇒∆ . . . [ˆz/y]Σn,Σ0,Γ⇒∆
Σ0,Γ⇒∆
where the variables ˆz do not occur free in the conclusion, andeach Σi is a multiset of atoms.
I Geometric rules can be added to G3-style calculi withoutaffecting admissibility of cut, weakening or contraction.[Negri 2005] [Simpson 1994].
I A geometric implication [Palmgren 2002?] is a formula ofthe form ∀x.(A⊃B), without⊃, ∀ in subformulae of A,B.They are constructively equivalent to:
∀x.((P10 ∧ . . .∧Pk0)⊃∃y.((P11 ∧ . . .∧Pk1
)∨ . . .∨(P1n ∧ . . .∧Pkn)))
I Frame conditions of many logics in Int∗ are geometricimplications.
Extending G3I for Geometric Intermediate Logics
I Adding rules that correspond to frame conditions of logics. . .
I Adding the “directedness” rule yields a calculus for Jan:
Rxz,Ryz,Rwx,Rwy,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Rwx,Rwy,Σ; Γ⇒∆dir
I Adding the “linearity rule” yields a calculus for GD:
Rxy,Σ; Γ⇒∆ Ryx,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Σ; Γ⇒∆lin
I Adding the “symmetry” rule yields a calculus for Cl:
Rxy,Ryx,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Rxy,Σ; Γ⇒∆sym
I Weakening, contraction and cut admissibility is preserved.
Hypersequents
I Attributed to [Avron] although similar calculi occur in earlierwork by [Beth], [Sambin & Valentini], [Pottinger].
I A hypersequent is a non-empty list/multiset of sequents
Γ1⇒∆1 | . . . | Γn⇒∆n
called its components.
I A hypersequent H is true in an interpretation I iff one of itscomponents, Γi⇒∆i ∈ H is true in that interpretation, i.e.
( ∧∧Γ1⊃ ∨∨∆1) ∨ . . . ∨ ( ∧∧Γn⊃ ∨∨∆n)
Syntax of Hypersequents
I Internal rules are (structural) rules which have one activecomponent in each premiss, and one principal component inthe conclusion. External rules are (structural) rules which arenot internal rules.
I The standard external rules are
HH|Γ⇒∆
EWH|Γ⇒∆|Γ⇒∆
H|Γ⇒∆EC
H|Γ′⇒∆′|Γ⇒∆|H′
H|Γ⇒∆|Γ′⇒∆′|H′ EP
where H,H′ denote the side components.
I The hyperextention of a sequent calculus is its extension asa hypersequent calculus by adding hypercontexts to rules andthe standard external rules.
A Hyperextention of a Calculus for Int
Γ, P⇒P,∆Ax
Γ,⊥⇒∆L⊥
H|Γ⇒∆,⊥H|Γ⇒∆
R⊥
H|Γ, A⇒∆ H|Γ, B⇒∆
H|Γ, A ∨B⇒∆L∨
H|Γ⇒A,∆
H|Γ⇒A ∨B,∆R∨1
H|Γ⇒B,∆
H|Γ⇒A ∨B,∆R∨2
H|Γ⇒∆, A H|Γ, B⇒∆
H|Γ, A⊃B⇒∆L⊃
H|Γ, A⇒B
H|Γ⇒A⊃B,∆R⊃
H|Γ⇒∆
H|Γ,Γ′⇒∆,∆′ WH|Γ,Γ′,Γ′⇒∆,∆′,∆′
H|Γ,Γ′⇒∆,∆′ C
plus the dual ∧ rules and standard external rules and(hyperextended) cut.
Extensions for Some Intermediate Logics
I Adding the LQ rule yields a calculus for Jan:
H|Γ1,Γ2⇒H|Γ1⇒ |Γ2⇒
LQ
I Adding the communication rule yields a calculus for GD:
H|Γ1,Γ2⇒∆1 H|Γ1,Γ2⇒∆2
H|Γ1⇒∆1|Γ2⇒∆2Com
I Adding the split rule yields a calculus for Cl:
H|Γ1,Γ2⇒∆1,∆2
H|Γ1⇒∆1|Γ2⇒∆2S
The Labelled and Hypersequent Rules Look Similar
Hypersequent Rule Relational Rule
H|Γ1,Γ2⇒H|Γ1⇒|Γ2⇒
Rxz,Ryz,Rwx,Rwy,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Rwx,Rwy,Σ; Γ⇒∆
H|Γ1,Γ2⇒∆1 H|Γ1,Γ2⇒∆2
H|Γ1⇒∆1|Γ2⇒∆2
Rxy,Σ; Γ⇒∆ Ryx,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Σ; Γ⇒∆
H|Γ1,Γ2⇒∆1,∆2
H|Γ1⇒∆1|Γ2⇒∆2
Rxy,Ryx,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Rxy,Σ; Γ⇒∆
Components roughly correspond to labels, and relational formularoughly correspond to subset relations.
Translation of Labelled Sequents to Hypersequents
I We want a translation of proofs in labelled systems like G3I∗to (familiar) hypersequent systems.
I Each label corresponds to a component.I Relations are translated using monotonicity: Rxy is translated
by including the antecedent (r. succedent) of the componentfor x (r. y) as a subset of the antecedent (r. succedent) ofthe component for y (r. x). e.g.,
Rxy,Ax, By⇒Cx, Dy 7→ A⇒C,D | A,B⇒D
The process is called transitive unfolding.
I The translation makes an explicit relationship between labelsinto an implicit relationship between components.
Labelled Calculi are More Expressive than Hypersequents
I The two labelled sequents,
Rxy,Rxz; Γx⇒ Rxy,Ryz; Γx⇒
both translate to the same hypersequent,
Γ⇒ | Γ⇒ | Γ⇒
I What do relations mean w.r.t. hypersequents? e.g. Thefollowing holds for Int models:
Rxy; (A ∨B)x, (B⊃C)y⇒Ax, Cy
but the corresponding hypersequent is not derivable for Int:
A ∨B⇒A,C | A ∨B,B⊃C⇒C
Hypersequents and Monotonicity
I Ideally, we’d like hypersequent rules to act on multiplecomponents in accordance with monotonicity, just as labelledrules do.
I But the following rule is not valid for Int:
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆′
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′|Γ,Γ′⇒∆′ L ⊆
I A simple counterexample is
A⇒A ∧B|A,B⇒A ∧B
A⇒A ∧B|B⇒A ∧BL ⊆
which is valid for GD = Int + (A⊃B) ∨ (B⊃A).
The Translation Requires Communication
TheoremLabelled proofs in G3I∗ (that do not contain ordering rules withprincipal relational formulae) can be translated into hypersequentproofs in a corresponding calculus augmented with the Com rule,
H|Γ⇒∆,∆′|Γ,Γ′⇒∆′ H|Γ,Γ′⇒∆|Γ′⇒∆,∆′
H|Γ⇒∆|Γ′⇒∆′ Com
I Labelled rules and proofs for some logics Int∗ can betranslated into hypersequent proofs for GD∗.
I The restriction on ordering rules has to do with theadmissibility of cut. A rule such as
Ryx,Rxy,Ryz; Γ⇒∆ Rzy,Rxy,Ryz; Γ⇒∆
Rxy,Ryz; Γ⇒∆bd2
translates to hypersequent rules with duplicated metavariablesin the conclusion, and that may affect cut admissibility. (?)
Translation of Proofs
I Note that this work is about translating proofs of arbitrarylabelled sequents (with relations) into hypersequents.
I The communication rule allows us to derive hypersequentvariants of the labelled rules.
I We proceed by transitive unfolding the premisses of eachlabelled inference and then applying the hypersequent variantof the inference rule, to obtain a conclusion that is thetransitive unfolding of the conclusion of the labelled inference.
I The refl, trans and mono rules are ignored as they are implicitin the translation. (?)
Monotonicity Rules
LemmaThe rules
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆′
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′|Γ,Γ′⇒∆′ L⊂∼H|Γ⇒∆,∆′, A|Γ,Γ′⇒∆′, A
H|Γ⇒∆,∆′|Γ,Γ′⇒∆′, AR⊂∼
are derivable using Com.
Proof.
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆′
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′2|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆′ W
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆′
H|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆,∆′|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆′ W
H|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆,∆′2 (RS)
H|A,Γ,Γ′⇒∆,∆′ C
H|A,Γ,Γ′|Γ′⇒∆2,∆′ EW
H|A,Γ⇒∆,∆′|Γ,Γ′⇒∆′ Com
The proof of R⊂∼ is similar.
Parallel Hypersequent Rules
LemmaThe rule
H|A,Γ1⇒∆1| . . . |A,Γk⇒∆k H|B,Γ1⇒∆1| . . . |B,Γk⇒∆k
H|A ∨B,Γ1⇒∆1| . . . |A ∨B,Γk⇒∆kL ∨ ?
where Γi ⊆ Γi+1 and ∆i+1 ⊆ ∆i, is derivable using Com.
The dual rule R ∧ ? is similarly derivable.
A L⊃? rule is also derivable, using the derived monotonicity rules.
An Example Translation
Rxx,Rxy;Ax⇒Ax, Cy
Rxy;Ax⇒Ax, Cy
Ryy,Rxy;Bx, By, (B⊃C)y⇒By Ryy;Cy, (B⊃C)y⇒Cy
Ryy,Rxy;Bx, By, (B⊃C)y⇒Cy
Rxy;Bx, By, (B⊃C)y⇒Cy
Rxy;Bx, (B⊃C)y⇒Cy
Rxy; (A ∨ B)x, (B⊃C)y⇒Ax, Cy
A⇒A,C|A,B⊃C⇒C
A⇒A,C|A,B⊃C⇒C
B⇒A,C|B,B⊃C⇒B,C B⇒A,C|C,B⊃C⇒C
B⇒A,C|B,B⊃C⇒C
B⇒A,C|B,B⊃C⇒C
B⇒A,C|B,B⊃C⇒C
A ∨ B⇒A,C|A ∨ B,B⊃C⇒C
Related Work (1)
I Hypersequents and labelled calculi for S5, [Avron, 1996], etc.
I Hypersequents and Display Logics for specific logics,[Wansing, 1998], and labelled calculi for S5, [Restall, 2006].
I Hypersequents and labelled calculi for A and L,[Metcalfe et al, 2002].
I Starred sequents, hypersequents and indexed sequents for S5and N3, [P. Girard, 2005].
I Relationship between labelled calculi and nested sequents formodal logics [Fitting, 2010].
Related Work (2)
I Obtaining labelled calculi from non-labelled (e.g. Hilbert andsequent) calculi, [Gabbay, 1996].
I Obtaining (hyper)sequent rules from Hilbert-style axioms[Ciabattoni et al, 2008].
I Syntactic conditions for cut admissibility [Ciabattoni et al,2009].
I Labelled sequent calculi with geometric rules, for non-classicallogics [Negri, 2005], spec. for intermediate logics [Dyckhoff &Negri, 2010 (MS)].
Open Questions and Future Work
I Do rules with non-linear conclusions (e.g. bd2) admit cut inthe presence of Com?
I Can hypersequent proofs of single components be transformedso that they do not have Com, for logics weaker than GD?
I Can transformation of labelled proofs into hypersequentproofs give a technique for parallelising programs?