Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-9th95 Total loading time: 0.247 Render date: 2022-12-06T14:14:01.097Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

RULES FOR SUBATOMIC DERIVATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2010

BARTOSZ WIĘCKOWSKI*
Affiliation:
Universität Tübingen
*
*UNIVERSITÄT TÜBINGEN, WILHELM-SCHICKARD-INSTITUT, SAND 13, 72076 TÜBINGEN, GERMANY, E-mail: bartosz.wieckowski@uni-tuebingen.de

Abstract

In proof-theoretic semantics the meaning of an atomic sentence is usually determined by a set of derivations in an atomic system which contain that sentence as a conclusion (see, in particular, Prawitz, 1971, 1973). The paper critically discusses this standard approach and suggests an alternative account which proceeds in terms of subatomic introduction and elimination rules for atomic sentences. A simple subatomic normal form theorem by which this account of the semantics of atomic sentences and the terms from which they are composed is underpinned, shows moreover that the proof-theoretic analysis of first-order logic can be pursued also beneath the atomic level.

Type
Research Article
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.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Francez, N., Dyckhoff, R., & Ben-Avi, G. (2010). Proof-theoretic semantics for subsentential phrases. Studia Logica, 94, 381401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbay, M., & Gabbay, M. J. (2009). Term sequent logic. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 246, 87106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzen, G. (1934). Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen I, II. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39, 176210, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallnäs, L., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1990/1991). A proof-theoretic approach to logic programming: I. Clauses as rules, II. Programs as definitions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1, 261283, 635–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahle, R., & Schroeder-Heister, P., editors. (2006). Proof-Theoretic Semantics. Special issue of Synthese, Vol. 148, No. 3, pp. 501749.Google Scholar
Kremer, M. (2007). Read on identity and harmony—A friendly correction and simplification. Analysis, 67, 157159.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, P. (1955). Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik (second edition). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Löf, P. (1971). Hauptsatz for the intuitionistic theory of iterated inductive definitions. In Fenstad, J. E., editor. Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium (Oslo 1970). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland, pp. 197215.Google Scholar
Moortgat, M. (1997). Categorial type logics. In van Benthem, J., & ter Meulen, A., editors. Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland, pp. 93177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, E. (1943). Formal reductions of the general combinatorial decision problem. American Journal of Mathematics, 65, 157215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prawitz, D. (1965). Natural Deduction. A Proof-Theoretical Study. Stockholm, Sweden: Almquist & Wiksell. Reprinted by Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, 2006.Google Scholar
Prawitz, D. (1970). Constructive semantics. In Proceedings of the First Scandinavian Logic Symposium (Åbo 1968). Filosofiska Studier utgivna av Filosofiska Föreningen och Filosofiska Institutionen vid Uppsala Universitet, nr 8, Uppsala, pp. 96114.Google Scholar
Prawitz, D. (1971). Ideas and results in proof theory. In Fenstad, J. E., editor. Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium (Oslo 1970). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland, pp. 235309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prawitz, D. (1973). Towards a foundation of a general proof theory. In Suppes, P., editor. Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science IV, Vol. 74. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland, pp. 225250.Google Scholar
Prawitz, D. (2006). Meaning approached via proofs. Synthese, 148, 507524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, S. (2004). Identity and harmony. Analysis, 64, 113119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2006). Validity concepts in proof-theoretic semantics. Synthese, 148, 525571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Więckowski, B. (2010). Associative substitutional semantics and quantified modal logic. Studia Logica, 94, 105138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

RULES FOR SUBATOMIC DERIVATION
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

RULES FOR SUBATOMIC DERIVATION
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

RULES FOR SUBATOMIC DERIVATION
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *