Re: Splitting, cut elimination and classical logic
Alessio Guglielmi <Alessio.Guglielmi-r/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.mathematics.frogs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 18:05 +0200 21.10.04, Lutz Strassburger wrote:
> > Take
>>
>> S = [ ([a,b],[c,d]) , ([-a,-c],[-b,-d]) ] .
>>
>> S is provable by a proof of the shape
>>
>> _
>> | {s,ai_}
>> |
>> [ (a,c),(b,d) ,([-a,-c],[-b,-d])]
>> m --------------------------------- .
>> [([a,b],[c,d]),([-a,-c],[-b,-d])]
>>
>> However, it is also possible to prove it by a proof of this shape
>>
>> _
>> | {s,ai_}
>> |
>> [([a,b],[c,d]), (-a,-b),(-c,-d) ]
>> m --------------------------------- .
>> [([a,b],[c,d]),([-a,-c],[-b,-d])]
>>
>> If P = [a,b] and Q = [c,d] and R = ([-a,-c],[-b,-d]), the splitting
>> theorem should capture the `migration' of medial from the proof above
>> (P,Q) to the generated proof above R.
>
>from the point of view of proof nets, the two proofs are identical. If you
>apply splitting to one of them and then put the pieces together, you
>should end up with the other.
OK, I think it's finally clear what we are doing differently.
I want exactly the opposite of what you have: I don't want the two
proofs to be identical. There is a phenomenon of migration of medial
which I want to capture, because it is relevant from the deductive
viewpoint (which is a different viewpoint than that of your proof
nets).
In one proof you have medial on the left, in the other you have
medial on the right, and of course you can embed those medials into
very complex situations, which means that you can amplify the
difference quite a bit, always from a deductive viewpoint.
This is why I think (my version of) splitting is very relevant for
getting to deductive proof nets: we should be able to observe these
phenomena, like medial migration.
Just not to be misunderstood: I very much like what you're doing,
simply, it's not what I'm after. You're getting a very concrete
semantics, I'm still after a very abstract syntax.
-Alessio