|
Re:A cut-free CoS system for S5: msg#00005science.mathematics.frogs
At 21:42 +0200 2/6/05, Phiniki Stouppa wrote: attached is a paper (draft) I've written lately on the technical Hello, I'm sending you several comments privately. I have one issue which could be suitable for discussion on the list. The question is: Are the display calculus or hypersequents deep inference formalisms? Should we consider them so? As far as I know, people in these areas never considered themselves as doing deep inference. Am I right? I think the term `deep inference' has been invented by Kai, actually. If so, I'm not sure we should tag the display calculus or hypersequents with deep inference, at least in context where there isn't a thorough discussion. I see the reasons for the modal logicians: there is a clear indication that, in order to do proof theory for modal logic, there is a need of *some form* of deep inference. This is clear. However, the notion of deep inference we have, which is `inference at any depth in formulae', is not obviously translatable into the display calculus or hypersequents. My suggestions is to continue arguing that these formalisms are `deeper' than the sequent calculus, that `some form' of deep inference is necessary for doing proof theory of certain logics, but to stop at this point, and keep the idea of deep inference in its pure form of inference at any depth. The reason is that the definition we have is simple and clear, while using it for other formalisms makes it vague. Ciao, -Alessio |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re:New bureacracy/coherence: 00005, Alessio Guglielmi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re:A cut-free CoS system for S5: 00005, Jon Cohen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re:New bureacracy/coherencei: 00005, Alessio Guglielmi |
| Next by Thread: | Re:A cut-free CoS system for S5: 00005, Jon Cohen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |