Skip to main content

Timeline for eliminating contraction

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 9, 2016 at 10:10 comment added Emil Jeřábek You can search for "substructural logic". The ultimate example is $A\vdash A\land A$. Note that without contraction, most connectives split into two. In the literature, $\land$ and $\lor$ are usually reserved for lattice conjunction and disjunction, using additive (shared-context) sequent rules. Multiplicative (split-context) conjunction, which is the one you defined in the question, tends to be denoted $\&$, $\cdot$, or $\otimes$; likewise, multiplicative disjunction is called $\oplus$. However, an incompatible notational convention was originally introduced for linear logic by Girard.
Sep 9, 2016 at 8:39 history edited Andre Kornell CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Sep 9, 2016 at 8:20 comment added Andre Kornell Yes, you are right; wikipedia has "sets" where it means "lists".
Sep 9, 2016 at 7:22 comment added Andrej Bauer The Wikipedia formulation is broken. It says that $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ are sets, but then it gives exchange and contraction as structural rules, which makes no sense for sets. Should we take $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ to be lists, or should we ignore exchange and contraction?
Sep 9, 2016 at 6:44 comment added Andre Kornell The statement of $\mathsf{LK}$ on wikipedia looks fine to me.
Sep 9, 2016 at 6:38 comment added Andre Kornell $\Sigma$ and $\Delta$ are lists of formulas.
Sep 9, 2016 at 6:19 comment added Andrej Bauer I think it would be good to be very precise about what you take as $\mathsf{LK}$, as little details here can matter. For instance, would the sequent calculus from Frank Pfenning's notes on sequent calculus be what you are looking for? (In particular, are $\Delta$ and $\Sigma$ sets or lists or multisets?)
Sep 9, 2016 at 3:10 history edited Andre Kornell CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 1 character in body
Sep 9, 2016 at 2:58 history asked Andre Kornell CC BY-SA 3.0