Minimality of the correctness criterion for multiplicative proof nets
Denis Béchet
Abstract
Denis Béchet
Abstract
Almost a decade ago, Girard invented linear logic with the notion of a proof-net. Proof-nets are special graphs built from formulas, links and boxes. However, not all nets are proof-nets. First, they must be well constructed (we say that such graphs are proof-structures). Second, a proof-net is a proof-structure that corresponds to a sequential proof. It must satisfy a correctness criterion. One may wonder what this static criterion means for cut-elimination. We prove that every incorrect proof-structure (without cut) can be put in an environment where reductions lead to two kinds of basically wrong configurations: deadlocks and disconnected proof-structures. Thus, this proof says that there does not exist a bigger class of proof-structures than proof-nets where normalization does not lead to obviously bad configurations.
OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Almost a decade ago, Girard invented linear logic with the notion of a proof-net. Proof-nets are special graphs built from formulas, links and boxes. However, not all nets are proof-nets. First, they must be well constructed (we say that such graphs are proof-structures). Second, a proof-net is a proof-structure that corresponds to a sequential proof. It must satisfy a correctness criterion. One may wonder what this static criterion means for cut-elimination. We prove that every incorrect proof-structure (without cut) can be put in an environment where reductions lead to two kinds of basically wrong configurations: deadlocks and disconnected proof-structures. Thus, this proof says that there does not exist a bigger class of proof-structures than proof-nets where normalization does not lead to obviously bad configurations.
Key concepts: Structural proof theory, Correctness, Analytic proof, Proof theory, Direct proof, Linear logic, Computer-assisted proof, Computer science