Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1802.03224

Unification nets: canonical proof net quantifiers

Dominic J. D. Hughes
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Proof nets for MLL (unit-free Multiplicative Linear Logic) are concise graphical representations of proofs which are canonical in the sense that they abstract away syntactic redundancy such as the order of non-interacting rules. We argue that Girard's extension to MLL1 (first-order MLL) fails to be canonical because of redundant existential witnesses, and present canonical MLL1 proof nets called unification nets without them. For example, while there are infinitely many cut-free Girard nets $\forall x Px \vdash \exists xPx$, one per arbitrary choice of witness for $\exists x$, there is a unique cut-free unification net, with no specified witness. Redundant existential witnesses cause Girard's MLL1 nets to suffer from severe complexity issues: (1) cut elimination is non-local and exponential-time (and -space), and (2) some sequents require exponentially large cut-free Girard nets. Unification nets solve both problems: (1) cut elimination is local and linear-time, and (2) cut-free unification nets grow linearly with the size of the sequent. Since some unification nets are exponentially smaller than corresponding Girard nets and sequent proofs, technical delicacy is required to ensure correctness is polynomial-time (quadratic). These results extend beyond MLL1 via a broader methodological insight: for canonical quantifiers, the standard parallel/sequential dichotomy of proof nets fails; an implicit/explicit witness dichotomy is also needed. Work in progress extends unification nets to additives and uses them to extend combinatorial proofs [Proofs without syntax, Annals of Mathematics, 2006] to classical first-order logic.

Explore related subjects

math.LOcs.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Dominic J. D. Hughes. 2018-02-09. Unification nets: canonical proof net quantifiers. https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03224

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗