Luiz Carlos Pereira

Sambin [6] proved the normalization theorem (Hauptsatz) for GL, the modal logic of provability, in a sequent calculus version called by him GLS. His proof does not take into account the concept of reduction, commonly used in normalization proofs. Bellini [1], on the other hand, gave a normalization proof for GL using reductions. Indeed, Sambin's proof is a decision procedure which builds cut‐free proofs. In this work we formalize this procedure as a recursive function and prove its recursiveness in an arithmetically formalizable way, concluding that the normalization of GL can be formalized in PA. MSC: 03F05, 03B35, 03B45.

Debates concerning philosophical grounds for the validity of classical and intuitionistic logics often have the very nature of proofs as a point of controversy. The intuitionist advocates for a strictly constructive notion of proof, while the classical logician advocates for a notion which allows the use of non-constructive principles such as reductio ad absurdum. In this paper we show how to coherently combine logical ecumenism and proof-theoretic semantics $$\boldsymbol{\mathrm{PtS}}$$ by providing not only a medium in which classical and intuitionistic logics coexist, but also one in which their respective notions of proof coexist. Intuitionistic proofs receive the standard treatment of $$\boldsymbol{\mathrm{PtS}}$$, whereas classical proofs are given a semantics based on ideas by David Hilbert. Furthermore, we advance the state of the art in $$\boldsymbol{\mathrm{PtS}}$$ by introducing a key contribution: treating the absurdity constant $$\bot$$ as an atomic proposition and requiring all bases to be consistent. This treatment is essential for the obtainment of some ecumenical results, and it can also be used in standard intuitionistic $$\boldsymbol{\mathrm{PtS}}$$. Additionally, we employ normalization techniques to demonstrate the consistency of simulation bases. These innovations provide fresh technical and conceptual insights into the study of bases in $$\boldsymbol{\mathrm{PtS}}$$.

It is part of an old folklore that logic should not have existential theo- rems or existential validities. One should not prove in pure logic the existence of anything whatsoever; nothing could be proved by means of logic alone to necessarily exist. Whatever exists might not exist. This standpoint has been expressed by several philosophers from different traditions, such as Hume, Kant, Orenstein and Quine. We now set the stage by examining some issues. Our main question is: “Do we actually have existential theorems in logic?” Two possible attitudes towards this question are as follows. A desideratum: logic should not have any existential theorems. A fact: logic does not have any existential theorems.

The relation between ex falso and disjunctive syllogism, or even the justification of ex falso based on disjunctive syllogism, is an old topic in the history of logic. This old topic reappears in contemporary logic since the introduction of minimal logic by Johansson. The disjunctive syllogism seems to be part of our general non-problematic inferential practices and superficially it does not seem to be related to or to depend on our acceptance of the frequently disputable ex falso rule. We know that the acceptance of the ex falso is a sufficient condition for the acceptance of the disjunctive syllogism, but the interesting question is: is the ex falso a necessary condition for the acceptance of the disjunctive syllogism? The aim of the present paper is to discuss some possible ways to define systems that combines the preservation of the disjunctive syllogism with the rejection of the ex falso.

Since Prawitz proposal of his ecumenical system, where classical and intuitionistic logics co-exist in peace, there has been a discussion about the relation between translations and the ecumenical perspective. While it is undeniable that there exists a relationship, it is also undeniable that its very nature is controversial. The aim of this paper is to show that there are interesting relations between the Gödel-Gentzen translation and the ecumenical perspective. We show that the ecumenical perspective cannot be reduced to the Gödel-Gentzen translation, much less be identified with it.

In 2015 Dag Prawitz proposed a natural deduction ecumenical system, where classical logic and intuitionistic logic are codified in the same system. In his ecumenical system, Prawitz recovers the harmony of rules, but the rules for the classical operators do not satisfy separability. In fact, the classical rules are not pure, in the sense that negation is used in the definition of the introduction and elimination rules for the classical operators. In this work we propose an ecumenical system adapting, to the natural deduction framework, Girard’s mechanism of stoup. This allows for the definition of a pure harmonic natural deduction system for the propositional fragment of Prawitz’s ecumenical logic. We conclude by presenting an extension proposal to the first-order setting and a different approach to purity based on some ideas proposed by Julien Murzi.

Much has been said about intuitionistic and classical logical systems since Gentzen’s seminal work. Recently, Prawitz and others have been discussing how to put together Gentzen’s systems for classical and intuitionistic logic in a single unified system. We call Prawitz’ proposal the Ecumenical System, following the terminology introduced by Pereira and Rodriguez. In this work we present an Ecumenical sequent calculus, as opposed to the original natural deduction version, and state some proof theoretical properties of the system. We reason that sequent calculi are more amenable to extensive investigation using the tools of proof theory, such as cut-elimination and rule invertibility, hence allowing a full analysis of the notion of Ecumenical entailment. We then present some extensions of the Ecumenical sequent system and show that interesting systems arise when restricting such calculi to specific fragments. This approach of a unified system enabling both classical and intuitionistic features sheds some light not only on the logics themselves, but also on their semantical interpretations as well as on the proof theoretical properties that can arise from combining logical systems.

Recent works about ecumenical systems, where connectives from classical and intuitionistic logics can co-exist in peace, warmed the discussion on proof systems for combining logics. This discussion has been extended to alethic modalities using Simpson’s meta-logical characterization: necessity is independent of the viewer, while possibility can be either intuitionistic or classical. In this work, we propose a pure, label free calculus for ecumenical modalities, nEK\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathsf {nEK}$$\end{document}, where exactly one logical operator figures in introduction rules and every basic object of the calculus can be read as a formula in the language of the ecumenical modal logic EK\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathsf {EK}$$\end{document}. We prove that nEK\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathsf {nEK}$$\end{document} is sound and complete w.r.t. the ecumenical birelational semantics and discuss fragments and extensions.

O livro foi publicado em 2012 e conta com a organização de Luiz Carlos Pereira, Lia Levy e Marco Zingano. Ele reúne textos de diversos filósofos brasileiros que discutem temas da filosofia analítica e da filosofia do século XXI, prestando homenagem ao filósofo Luiz Henrique Lopes. Os textos exploram a relação entre metafísica e lógica, além de outros temas filosóficos relevantes da atualidade. Uma das ideias centrais discutidas é a conexão entre a lógica e a metafísica, explorando a possibilidade de conceber princípios lógicos como princípios sobre a estrutura da realidade. The book was published in 2012 and was edited by Luiz Carlos Pereira, Lia Levy, and Marco Zingano. It brings together texts by various Brazilian philosophers who discuss topics in analytical philosophy and 21st-century philosophy, paying tribute to the philosopher Luiz Henrique Lopes. The texts explore the relationship between metaphysics and logic, as well as other relevant philosophical topics of today. One of the central ideas discussed is the connection between logic and metaphysics, exploring the possibility of conceiving logical principles as principles about the structure of reality.

This collection of papers, celebrating the contributions of Swedish logician Dag Prawitz to Proof Theory, has been assembled from those presented at the Natural Deduction conference organized in Rio de Janeiro to honour his seminal research. Dag Prawitz’s work forms the basis of intuitionistic type theory and his inversion principle constitutes the foundation of most modern accounts of proof-theoretic semantics in Logic, Linguistics and Theoretical Computer Science. The range of contributions includes material on the extension of natural deduction with higher-order rules, as opposed to higher-order connectives, and a paper discussing the application of natural deduction rules to dealing with equality in predicate calculus. The volume continues with a key chapter summarizing work on the extension of the Curry-Howard isomorphism, via methods of category theory that have been successfully applied to linear logic, as well as many other contributions from highly regarded authorities. With an illustrious group of contributors addressing a wealth of topics and applications, this volume is a valuable addition to the libraries of academics in the multiple disciplines whose development has been given added scope by the methodologies supplied by natural deduction. The volume is representative of the rich and varied directions that Prawitz work has inspired in the area of natural deduction.

In 1930, Johann von Neumann, together with Rudolf Carnap and Arend Heyting, participated in a conference held in Königsberg, called “Second Seminar on the Epistemology of Exact Sciences”. The idea behind the reunion of these three researchers was to compose a fairly faithful picture of the three main foundational programs of mathematics at the time: formalism, logicism, and intuitionism. The main objective of this paper is to propose an analysis of the text “The Formalist Foundation of Mathematics” presented by von Neumann in this conference. We show how, from von Neumann's perspective, the problem of the consistency of mathematical theories results from the transformation of a genuinely philosophical question into a genuinely logical-mathematical question and how a proof of consistency could be seen as the solution to the foundational problem. In the final part of the text, we present some considerations about Gerhard Gentzen’s consistency proofs and their importance to contemporary proof theory.

This paper is a continuation of dag-like proof compression research initiated in [9]. We investigate proof compression phenomenon in a particular, most transparent case of propositional DNF Logic. We define and analyze a very efficient semi-analytic sequent calculus SEQ*0 for propositional DNF. The efficiency is achieved by adding two special rules CQ and CS; the latter rule is a variant of the weakened substitution rule WS from [9], while the former one being specially designed for DNF sequents. We show that dag-like SEQ*0 has good deterministic proof search strategy. Furthermore, we expose six examples showing that dag-like deducibility in SEQ*0 admits exponential-size proof compression, as compared to familiar proof systems like cutfree sequent calculi, resolution and cutting plane proof systems

In 2015 Dag Prawitz proposed an Ecumenical system where classical and intuitionistic logic could coexist in peace. The classical logician and the intuitionistic logician would share the universal quantifier, conjunction, negation and the constant for the absurd, but they would each have their own existential quantifier, disjunction and implication, with different meanings. Prawitz’ main idea is that these different meanings are given by a semantical framework that can be accepted by both parties. The aim of the present paper is [1] to prove the normalization theorem for the propositional fragment NEp of Prawitz’ ecumenical system, and [2] to show that NEp is sound and complete with respect to a Kripke-style semantics for the language of NEp.

This paper proposes a classification of economic models into three types: historical, axiomatic and conditional. Historical or empirical models utilize the historical-deductive method, and are generalizations from the economic regularities and tendencies that we find in the real world. Axiomatic models utilize the hypothetical-deductive method; they are syllogisms whose major premise is an axiom – a self-evident truth; they are appropriate for methodological sciences such as mathematics and econometrics. Conditional economic models are likewise syllogisms, but they are suitable for economics because they make for clearer and more precise economic reasoning. The criterion of truth of the substantive sciences is the conformity with reality, of the methodological science, its internal consistency. When a school of economic thought adopts mainly axiomatic models, as is the case with neoclassical economics, it implicitly falls into contradiction because their best representatives believe in the conformity with reality criterion.

A natural extension of Natural Deduction was defined by Schroder-Heister where not only formulas but also rules could be used as hypotheses and hence discharged. It was shown that this extension allows the definition of higher-level introduction and elimination schemes and that the set $\{ \vee, \wedge, \rightarrow, \bot \}$ of intuitionist sentential operators forms a {\it complete} set of operators modulo the higher level introduction and elimination schemes, i.e., that any operator whose introduction and elimination rules are instances of the higher-level schemes can be defined in terms of $\{ \vee, \wedge, \rightarrow, \bot \}$.The aim of the present work is to extend the well-known connections between Proof Theory and Category Theory to higher-level Natural Deduction. To be precise, we will show how an adjointness between cartesian closed categories with finite coproducts can be associated, in a systematic way, with any operator $\phi$ defined by the higher-level schemes. The objects in the categories will be rules instead of formulas.