It is well known that if we restrict the right side part of sequents to be single formulas, we obtain intuitionist logic. What happens if we restrict left side part in sequents to have only one formula? Which logic one obtains? Where can I read more about this?
2026-02-23 10:14:21.1771841661
Restricting left side formulas in sequents
46 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in NATURAL-DEDUCTION
- Predicate logic: Natural deduction: Introducing universal quantifier
- Deduce formula from set of formulas
- Prove the undecidability of a formula
- Natural deduction proof for $(P\to\lnot Q)\to(\lnot P \lor\lnot Q)$
- How do I build a proof in natural deduction?
- Deductive Logic Proof
- Can the natural deduction system prove $P \iff ¬P$ to show that it's a contradiction?
- Exercises and solutions for natural deduction proofs in Robinson and Peano arithmetic
- How would I show that X is equivalent to ((¬X ↔ X ) ∨ X )?
- Equivalence proof by using identities and ‘n series of substitutions: (P ⋁ Q) → (P ⋀ Q) ≡ (P → Q) ⋀ (Q → P).
Related Questions in SEQUENT-CALCULUS
- Why is there a limitation on the existential introduction in sequent calculus?
- How to understand this mathematical notation?
- Why does the inference rule of negation moves a term to the other side of the turnstile
- Is cut rule an instance of left implication?
- Use logical deduction to show that the following propositions are unconditionally true
- Comma in turnstile (entailment)
- For every formula of linear logic, is there an equivalent formula in intuitionistic linear logic?
- Proof of the deduction theorem in sequent calculus
- sequent calculus for first order logic
- Soundness of cut in Gentzen's System LK
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Most of the rules of the classical sequent calculus have exact duals, so it doesn't really matter for them whether it's the left-hand side or the right-hand side of the sequents we restrict.
The exception to this is implication.
In a classical sequent calculus where $\neg$ is a primitive, $A\to B$ behaves exactly like $\neg A \lor B$; the left and right rules for $\to$ both become derived rules if we view $\to$ as an abbreviation.
The reason why intuitionistic logic, where we restrict the right-hand side of the sequent, is interesting is that the restricted $\to$R rule allows us to do something that the restricted $\neg$R and $\lor$R rules cannot be combined to produce. So now $\to$ is actually an interesting connective in its own right.
On the other hand, if we restrict to the left, the problem is to do what to do with the classical $\to$L rule $$ \frac{\Gamma \vdash A, \Delta \qquad \Sigma, B \vdash \Pi}{\Gamma, \Sigma, A\rightarrow B \vdash \Delta, \Pi} $$ The only thing that seems to make sense is to replace $\Gamma$ on the upper left with $A\to B$ itself, giving $$ \frac{A\to B \vdash A, \Delta \qquad B \vdash \Pi}{A\rightarrow B \vdash \Delta, \Pi} \qquad\qquad \frac{A \vdash B, \Delta}{C \vdash A \rightarrow B, \Delta} $$ but now both these rules are admissible rules in the left-restricted system if we view $A\to B$ as an abbreviation for $\neg A \lor B$.
So actually what we get is exactly equivalent to the $\to$-less fragment of intuitionistic logic, only with everything replaced by its dual and the sequents written backwards!
And intuitionistic logic without implication is not very interesting at all.