Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:47:29.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Slicing Polarized Additive Normalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2010

Olivier Laurent
Affiliation:
IML-CNRS Marseille
Lorenzo Tortora de Falco
Affiliation:
Roma III
Thomas Ehrhard
Affiliation:
Institut de Mathématiques de Luminy, Marseille
Jean-Yves Girard
Affiliation:
Institut de Mathématiques de Luminy, Marseille
Paul Ruet
Affiliation:
Institut de Mathématiques de Luminy, Marseille
Philip Scott
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access

Summary

Abstract

To attack the problem of “computing with the additives”, we introduce a notion of sliced proof-net for the polarized fragment of linear logic. We prove that this notion yields computational objects, sequentializable in the absence of cuts. We then show how the injectivity property of denotational semantics guarantees the “canonicity” of sliced proof-nets, and prove injectivity for the fragment of polarized linear logic corresponding to the simply typed λ-calculus with pairing.

Introduction

The question of equality of proofs is an important one in the “proofsas-programs” paradigm. Traditional syntaxes (sequent calculus, natural deduction, …) distinguish proofs which are clearly the same as computational processes. On the other hand, denotational semantics identifies “too many” proofs (two different stages of the same computation are always identified). The seek of an object sticking as much as possible to the computational nature of proofs led to the introduction of a new syntax for logic: proof-nets, a graph-theoretic presentation which gives a more geometric account of proofs (see). This discovery was achieved by a sharp (syntactical and semantical) analysis of the cut-elimination procedure.

Any person with a little knowledge of the multiplicative framework of linear logic (LL), has no doubt that proof-nets are the canonical representation of proofs. But as soon as one moves from such a fragment, the notion of proof-net appears “less pure”. A reasonable solution for the multiplicative and exponential fragment of LL (with quantifiers) does exist (combining and, like in).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×