Noncommutative logic is an extension of linear logic that combines the commutative connectives of linear logic with the noncommutative multiplicative connectives of the Lambek calculus. Its sequent calculus relies on the structure of order varieties (a family of cyclic orders that may be viewed as a species of structure), and the correctness criterion for its proof nets is given in terms of partial permutations. It also has a denotational semantics in which formulas are interpreted by modules over some specific Hopf algebras.
By extension, the term noncommutative logic is also used by a number of authors to refer to a family of substructural logics in which the exchange rule is inadmissible. The remainder of this article is devoted to a presentation of this acceptance of the term.
The oldest noncommutative logic is the Lambek calculus, which gave rise to the class of logics known as categorial grammars. Since the publication of Jean-Yves Girard's linear logic there have been several new noncommutative logics proposed, namely the cyclic linear logic of David Yetter, the pomset logic of Christian Retoré, and the noncommutative logics BV and NEL.
Noncommutative logic is sometimes called ordered logic, since it is possible with most proposed noncommutative logics to impose a total or partial order on the formulas in sequents. However this is not fully general since some noncommutative logics do not support such an order, such as Yetter's cyclic linear logic. Although most noncommutative logics do not allow weakening or contraction together with noncommutativity, this restriction is not necessary.
Joachim Lambek proposed the first noncommutative logic in his 1958 paper Mathematics of Sentence Structure to model the combinatory possibilities of the syntax of natural languages. [1] His calculus has thus become one of the fundamental formalisms of computational linguistics.
David N. Yetter proposed a weaker structural rule in place of the exchange rule of linear logic, yielding cyclic linear logic. [2] Sequents of cyclic linear logic form a cycle, and so are invariant under rotation, where multipremise rules glue their cycles together at the formulas described in the rules. The calculus supports three structural modalities, a self-dual modality allowing exchange, but still linear, and the usual exponentials (? and !) of linear logic, allowing nonlinear structural rules to be used together with exchange.
Pomset logic was proposed by Christian Retoré in a semantic formalism with two dual sequential operators existing together with the usual tensor product and par operators of linear logic, the first logic proposed to have both commutative and noncommutative operators. [3] A sequent calculus for the logic was given, but it lacked a cut-elimination theorem; instead the sense of the calculus was established through a denotational semantics.
Alessio Guglielmi proposed a variation of Retoré's calculus, BV, in which the two noncommutative operations are collapsed onto a single, self-dual, operator, and proposed a novel proof calculus, the calculus of structures to accommodate the calculus. The principal novelty of the calculus of structures was its pervasive use of deep inference, which it was argued is necessary for calculi combining commutative and noncommutative operators; this explanation concurs with the difficulty of designing sequent systems for pomset logic that have cut-elimination.
Lutz Straßburger devised a related system, NEL, also in the calculus of structures in which linear logic with the mix rule appears as a subsystem.
Structads are an approach to the semantics of logic that are based upon generalising the notion of sequent along the lines of Joyal's combinatorial species, allowing the treatment of more drastically nonstandard logics than those described above, where, for example, the ',' of the sequent calculus is not associative.
In logic and proof theory, natural deduction is a kind of proof calculus in which logical reasoning is expressed by inference rules closely related to the "natural" way of reasoning. This contrasts with Hilbert-style systems, which instead use axioms as much as possible to express the logical laws of deductive reasoning.
Proof theory is a major branch of mathematical logic and theoretical computer science within which proofs are treated as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques. Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined data structures such as lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the axioms and rules of inference of a given logical system. Consequently, proof theory is syntactic in nature, in contrast to model theory, which is semantic in nature.
In mathematical logic, sequent calculus is a style of formal logical argumentation in which every line of a proof is a conditional tautology instead of an unconditional tautology. Each conditional tautology is inferred from other conditional tautologies on earlier lines in a formal argument according to rules and procedures of inference, giving a better approximation to the natural style of deduction used by mathematicians than to David Hilbert's earlier style of formal logic, in which every line was an unconditional tautology. More subtle distinctions may exist; for example, propositions may implicitly depend upon non-logical axioms. In that case, sequents signify conditional theorems in a first-order language rather than conditional tautologies.
In mathematical logic, a sequent is a very general kind of conditional assertion.
In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs.
Noncommutative geometry (NCG) is a branch of mathematics concerned with a geometric approach to noncommutative algebras, and with the construction of spaces that are locally presented by noncommutative algebras of functions, possibly in some generalized sense. A noncommutative algebra is an associative algebra in which the multiplication is not commutative, that is, for which does not always equal ; or more generally an algebraic structure in which one of the principal binary operations is not commutative; one also allows additional structures, e.g. topology or norm, to be possibly carried by the noncommutative algebra of functions.
In logic, a substructural logic is a logic lacking one of the usual structural rules, such as weakening, contraction, exchange or associativity. Two of the more significant substructural logics are relevance logic and linear logic.
Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter. Although the logic has also been studied for its own sake, more broadly, ideas from linear logic have been influential in fields such as programming languages, game semantics, and quantum physics, as well as linguistics, particularly because of its emphasis on resource-boundedness, duality, and interaction.
In the logical discipline of proof theory, a structural rule is an inference rule of a sequent calculus that does not refer to any logical connective but instead operates on the sequents directly. Structural rules often mimic the intended meta-theoretic properties of the logic. Logics that deny one or more of the structural rules are classified as substructural logics.
Categorial grammar is a family of formalisms in natural language syntax that share the central assumption that syntactic constituents combine as functions and arguments. Categorial grammar posits a close relationship between the syntax and semantic composition, since it typically treats syntactic categories as corresponding to semantic types. Categorial grammars were developed in the 1930s by Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz and in the 1950s by Yehoshua Bar-Hillel and Joachim Lambek. It saw a surge of interest in the 1970s following the work of Richard Montague, whose Montague grammar assumed a similar view of syntax. It continues to be a major paradigm, particularly within formal semantics.
In proof theory, proof nets are a geometrical method of representing proofs that eliminates two forms of bureaucracy that differentiate proofs: (A) irrelevant syntactical features of regular proof calculi, and (B) the order of rules applied in a derivation. In this way, the formal properties of proof identity correspond more closely to the intuitively desirable properties. This distinguishes proof nets from regular proof calculi such as the natural deduction calculus and the sequent calculus, where these phenomena are present. Proof nets were introduced by Jean-Yves Girard.
Bunched logic is a variety of substructural logic proposed by Peter O'Hearn and David Pym. Bunched logic provides primitives for reasoning about resource composition, which aid in the compositional analysis of computer and other systems. It has category-theoretic and truth-functional semantics, which can be understood in terms of an abstract concept of resource, and a proof theory in which the contexts Γ in an entailment judgement Γ ⊢ A are tree-like structures (bunches) rather than lists or (multi)sets as in most proof calculi. Bunched logic has an associated type theory, and its first application was in providing a way to control the aliasing and other forms of interference in imperative programs. The logic has seen further applications in program verification, where it is the basis of the assertion language of separation logic, and in systems modelling, where it provides a way to decompose the resources used by components of a system.
In mathematical logic, structural proof theory is the subdiscipline of proof theory that studies proof calculi that support a notion of analytic proof, a kind of proof whose semantic properties are exposed. When all the theorems of a logic formalised in a structural proof theory have analytic proofs, then the proof theory can be used to demonstrate such things as consistency, provide decision procedures, and allow mathematical or computational witnesses to be extracted as counterparts to theorems, the kind of task that is more often given to model theory.
In mathematical logic, Deep inference names a general idea in structural proof theory that breaks with the classical sequent calculus by generalising the notion of structure to permit inference to occur in contexts of high structural complexity. The term deep inference is generally reserved for proof calculi where the structural complexity is unbounded; in this article we will use non-shallow inference to refer to calculi that have structural complexity greater than the sequent calculus, but not unboundedly so, although this is not at present established terminology.
In mathematical logic, a proof calculus or a proof system is built to prove statements.
Logic is the formal science of using reason and is considered a branch of both philosophy and mathematics and to a lesser extent computer science. Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning such as probability, correct reasoning, and arguments involving causality. One of the aims of logic is to identify the correct and incorrect inferences. Logicians study the criteria for the evaluation of arguments.
In proof theory, the Geometry of Interaction (GoI) was introduced by Jean-Yves Girard shortly after his work on linear logic. In linear logic, proofs can be seen as various kinds of networks as opposed to the flat tree structures of sequent calculus. To distinguish the real proof nets from all the possible networks, Girard devised a criterion involving trips in the network. Trips can in fact be seen as some kind of operator acting on the proof. Drawing from this observation, Girard described directly this operator from the proof and has given a formula, the so-called execution formula, encoding the process of cut elimination at the level of operators.
In mathematics and philosophy, Łukasiewicz logic is a non-classical, many-valued logic. It was originally defined in the early 20th century by Jan Łukasiewicz as a three-valued modal logic; it was later generalized to n-valued as well as infinitely-many-valued (ℵ0-valued) variants, both propositional and first order. The ℵ0-valued version was published in 1930 by Łukasiewicz and Alfred Tarski; consequently it is sometimes called the Łukasiewicz–Tarski logic. It belongs to the classes of t-norm fuzzy logics and substructural logics.
In mathematical logic, the hypersequent framework is an extension of the proof-theoretical framework of sequent calculi used in structural proof theory to provide analytic calculi for logics that are not captured in the sequent framework. A hypersequent is usually taken to be a finite multiset of ordinary sequents, written