Advertisement

Mechanizing relevant logics with HOL

  • Hajime Sawamura
  • Daisaku Asanuma
Refereed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1479)

Abstract

Relevant logics are non-classical logics, whose motivation is to remove logical fallacies caused by the classical “implication≓. In this paper, we propose a method to build an interactive theorem prover for relevant logics. This is done first by translating the possible world semantics for relevant logics to the higher-order representation of HOL, and then under the HOL theory obtained by this translation, relevant formulas are shown to be valid using the powerful HOL proof capabilities such as backward reasoning with tactics and tacticals. Relevant logics we have dealt with so far includes Routley and Meyer's R system (originally Hilbert-type axiomatization) and Read's R system (basically Gentzentype axiomatization). Our various proof experiences of relevant formulas by HOL and their analyses yielded a powerful proof heuristics for relevant logics. It actually allowed us to prove a formula which has been known to be difficult for traditional theorem provers and even relevant logicians.

Keywords

Atomic Formula Natural Deduction Proof Theory Relevant Logic World Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap, Jr. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 1, Princeton Univ. Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Basin, S. Matthews, and L. Vigano. Natural Deduction for Non-Classical Logics, to appear in Studia Logica, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. M. Dunn. Relevance Logic and Entailment. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. III, D. Reidel Publishing Company, pages 117–224, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. M. Gabbay. LDS — Labelled Deductive Systems (Volume 1 — Foundations), Clarendon Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. J. C. Gordon. and T. F. Melham. Introduction to HOL, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. de Groote. Linear Logic with Isabelle: Pruning the Proof Search Tree, LNAI 918, Springer, pages 263–277, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. J. Ohlbach and G. Wrightson. Solving a Problem in Relevance Logic with an Automated Theorem Prover, LNCS 170, Springer, pages 496–508, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Paulson. Isabelle, a Generic Theorem Prover, LNCS 828, Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Read. Relevant Logic, Basil Blackwell, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Routley and R. Meyer. The Semantics of Entailment, In Leblanc (ed.), Truth, Syntax and Modality, North-Holland, pages 199–243, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P. B. Thistlewaite, M. A. McRobbie, and R. K. Meyer. Automated Theorem-Proving in Non-Classical Logics, Pitman Publishing, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    H. Sawamura, T. Minami, K. Yokota, and K. Ohashi. A logic programming approach to specifying logics and constructing proofs, Proc. of the Seventh International Conference on Logic Programming, The MIT Press, pages 405–424, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Sawamura, T. Minami, and T. Ohtani. EUODHILOS: A general reasoning system for a variety of logics, LNAI 624, Springer, pages 501–503, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Urquhart. The undecidability of entailment and relevant implication, JSL, 49:1059–1073, 1984.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hajime Sawamura
    • 1
  • Daisaku Asanuma
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Information Engineering and Graduate School of Science and EngineeringNiigata UniversityNiigataJapan

Personalised recommendations