Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sequent Calculus and the Specification of Computation

  • Conference paper
Computational Logic

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NATO ASI F,volume 165))

Abstract

The sequent calculus has been used for many purposes in recent years within theoretical computer science. In these lectures, we shall highlight some of its uses in the specification of and reasoning about computation.

During the search for cut-free sequent proofs, the formulas in sequents are re-arranged and replaced with other formulas. Such changes can be used to model the dynamics of computation in a wide range of applications. For various reasons, we shall be interested in “goal-directed proof search” and will examine intuitionistic logic and linear logic for subsets that support this particularly simple form of search. We will show, quite surprisingly, that with the appropriate selection of logical connectives, goal-directed search is complete for all of linear logic. This fact leads naturally to the design of a logic programming-like language based on linear logic. The resulting specification language, called Forum, is an expressive and rich specification language suitable for a wide range of computational paradigms.

After providing an overview of sequent calculus principles, we shall develop the notion of goal directed search for a variety of logics, starting with the intuitionistic logic theory of Horn clauses and hereditary Harrop formulas. We shall provide various example specifications in these logics, especially examples that illustrate how rich forms of abstractions can be captured. Finally, we briefly indicate how the notion of goal-directed proof search can be extended to linear logic.

No advanced knowledge of the sequent calculus or of linear logic will be assumed, although some familiarity with their elementary syntactic properties will be useful. Similarly, some acquaintance with the basic concepts of the lambda-calculus and intuitionistic logic will also be useful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Jean-Marc Andreoli. Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic.Journal of Logic and Computation2(3):297–347, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. J.-M. Andreoli and R. Pareschi. Linear objects: Logical processes with built-in inheritance. InProceeding of the Seventh International Conference on Logic Programming JerusalemMay 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.M. Andreoli and R. Pareschi. Linear objects: Logical processes with built-in inheritance.New Generation Computing9(3–4):445–473,1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. K. R. Apt and M. H. van Emden. Contributions to the theory of logic programming.Journal of the ACM29(3):841–862, 1982.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Michele Bugliesi, Giorgio Delzanno, Luigi Liguori, and Maurizio Martelli. A linear logic calculus of objects. In M. Maher, editorProceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming.MIT Press, September 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Paola Bruscoli and Alessio Guglielmi. A linear logic view of Gamma style computations as proof searches. In Jean-Marc Andreoli, Chris Hankin, and Daniel Le Métayer, editorsCoordination Programming: Mechanisms Models and Semantics. Imperial College Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Bugliesi, E. Lamma, and P. Mello. Modularity in logic programming.Journal of Logic Programming19/20:443–502, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Jawahar Chirimar.Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages.PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, February 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Iliano Cervesato, Joshua S. Hodas, and Frank Pfenning. Efficient resource management for linear logic proof search. In Roy Dyckhoff, Heinrich Herre, and Peter Schroeder-Heister, editorsProceedings of the 1996 Workshop on Extensions to Logic Programming.Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alonzo Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types.Journal of Symbolic Logic5:56–68, 1940.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. W. F. Clocksin and C. S. Mellish. Programming in Prolog.Springer-Verlag, 1984.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Iliano Cervesato and Frank Pfenning. A linear logic framework. InProceedings Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Sciencepages 264–275, New Brunswick, New Jersey, July 1996. IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Giorgio Delzanno and Maurizio Martelli. Objects in Forum. InProceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Amy Felty. Implementing tactics and tacticals in a higher-order logic programming language.Journal of Automated Reasoning11(1):43–81, August 1993.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Melvin C. Fitting.Intuitionistic Logic Model Theory and Forcing.North-Holland, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Amy Felty and Dale Miller. Specifying theorem provers in a higher-order logic programming language. InNinth International Conference on Automated Deductionpages 61–80, Argonne, IL, May 1988. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jean H. Gallier.Logic for Computer Science: Foundations of Automatic Theorem Proving.Harper & Row, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gerhard Gentzen. Investigations into logical deductions. In M. E. Szabo, editorThe Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzenpages 68–131. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jean-Yves Girard. Linear logic.Theoretical Computer Science50:1–102, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jean-Yves Girard, Paul Taylor, and Yves Lafont.Proofs and Types.Cambridge University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Alessio Guglielmi. Concurrency and plan generation in a logic programming language with a sequential operator. In P. Van Hentenryck, editorLogic Programming 11th International Conference S. Margherita Ligure Italypages 240–254. MIT Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Alessio Guglielmi. Sequentiality by linear implication and universal quantification. In Jörg Desel, editorStructures in Con-currency TheoryWorkshops in Computing, pages 160–174. Springer-Verlag, 1995.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Alessio Guglielmi.Abstract Logic Programming in Linear Logic—Independence and Causality in a First Order Calculus.PhD thesis, Università di Pisa, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. Harrop. Concerning formulas of the types ABVC, A(Ex)B(x)in intuitionistic formal systems.Journal of Symbolic Logic, pages 27–32, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. Hennessy and R. Milner. Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency.JACM32(1):137–161, 1985.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Joshua Hodas and Dale Miller. Representing objects in a logic programming language with scoping constructs. In David H. D. Warren and Peter Szeredi, editors1990 International Conference in Logic Programmingpages 511–526. MIT Press, June 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Joshua Hodas and Dale Miller. Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic: Extended abstract. In G. Kahn, editorSixth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Sciencepages 32–42, Amsterdam, July 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Joshua Hodas and Dale Miller. Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic.Information and Computation110(2):327–365, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Joshua Hodas. Specifying filler-gap dependency parsers in a linear-logic programming language. In K. Apt, editorProceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programmingpages 622–636, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Joshua S. Hodas.Logic Programming in Intuitionistic Linear Logic: Theory Design,and Implementation. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science, May 1994. Available as University of Pennsylvania Technical Reports MS-CIS-92–28 or LINC LAB 269.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Hennesy and D. Patterson.Computer Architecture A Quantitative Approach.Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  32. James Harland and David Pym. The uniform proof-theoretic foundation of linear logic programming (extended abstract). In V. Saraswat and K. Ueda, editorsProceedings of the 1991 International Logic Programming Symposium San Diegopages 304–318, San Diego, November 1991. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. James Harland and David Pym. Resolution in fragments of classical linear logic (extended abstract). In A. Voronkov, editorProceedings of the Russian Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoningvolume 624 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligencepages 30–41, St. Petersburg, July 1992. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stephen Cole Kleene. Permutabilities of inferences in Gentzen’s calculi LK and LJ.Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society10, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Naoki Kobayashi and Akinori Yonezawa. ACL - a concurrent linear logic programming paradigm. In Dale Miller, editorLogic Programming - Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposiumpages 279–294. MIT Press, October 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dale Miller. Lexical scoping as universal quantification. InSixth International Logic Programming Conferencepages 268–283, Lisbon, Portugal, June 1989. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dale Miller. A logical analysis of modules in logic programming.Journal of Logic Programming6(1,2):79–108, January 1989.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Dale Miller. Abstractions in logic programming. In Piergiorgio Odifreddi, editorLogic and Computer Sciencepages 329–359. Academic Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dale Miller. Proof theory as an alternative to model theory.Newsletter of the Association for Logic ProgrammingAugust 1991. Guest editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dale Miller. The π-calculus as a theory in linear logic: Preliminary results. In E. Lamma and P. Mello, editorsProceedings of the 1992 Workshop on Extensions to Logic Programmingnumber 660 in LNCS, pages 242–265. Springer-Verlag, 1993.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Dale Miller. A survey of linear logic programming.Computational Logic: The Newsletter of the European Network in Computational Logic2(2):63 — 67, December 1995.ftp://ftp.cse.psu.edu/pub/papers/miller/ComputNet95/

  42. Dale Miller. Forum: A multiple-conclusion specification language.Theoretical Computer Science165:201–232, 1996.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Dale Miller, Gopalan Nadathur, Frank Pfenning, and Andre Scedrov. Uniform proofs as a foundation for logic programming.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic51:125–157, 1991.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Robin Milner, Joachim Parrow, and David Walker. A calculus of mobile processes, Part I.Information and Computationpages 1–40, September 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Robin Milner, Joachim Parrow, and David Walker. A calculus of mobile processes, Part II.Information and Computationpages 41–77, September 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gopalan Nadathur and Dale Miller. Higher-order Horn clauses.Journal of the ACM37(4):777–814, October 1990.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Remo Pareschi and Dale Miller. Extending definite clause grammars with scoping constructs. In David H. D. Warren and Peter Szeredi, editors1990 International Conference in Logic Programmingpages 373–389. MIT Press, June 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dag Prawitz.Natural Deduction.Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Leon Sterling and Ehud Shapiro.The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques.MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Anne Sjerp Troelstra, editor.Metamathematical Investigation of Intuitionistic Arithmetic and Analysisvolume 344 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer Verlag, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, 220 Pond Lab The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16827, USA

    Dale Miller

Authors
  1. Dale Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, University of Munich, Theresienstr. 39, Munich, D-80333, Germany

    Ulrich Berger  & Helmut Schwichtenberg  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Miller, D. (1999). Sequent Calculus and the Specification of Computation. In: Berger, U., Schwichtenberg, H. (eds) Computational Logic. NATO ASI Series, vol 165. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58622-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58622-4_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-63670-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-58622-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation