A Proof Search System for a Modal Substructural Logic Based on Labelled Deductive Systems

Hiu Fai CHAU Department of Computing, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, 180, Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, U.K.
<H.F.Chau@doc.ic.ac.uk>

April 1993
Technical Report DOC 93/1

Abstract
This paper describes a proof search system for a non{classical logic (modal concatenation (substructural) logic) based on Gabbay's Labelled Deductive System (LDS). The logic concerned is treated as a case study. It has some unusual features which combine resource (linear, Lambek Calculus or relevance logics) with modality (intensional, temporal, or epistemic logics), and may have some useful applications in AI and natural language processing. We present axiomatic and LDS style proof theories (two-dimensional label structure) and semantics for the logic. Soundness and completeness results are proved. We show that, for non{classical logic theorem proving, LDS is more exible than the existing methods, and is suitable for mechanisation directly. It also bridges the gap between proof theory and implementation. This paper also veri es Gabbay's open claims that LDS is a good framework for handling logics which combine di erent features, such as modality and resource restriction. We believe our approach can be extended to any variant which combines substructurality and modality. Keywords: Theorem Proving in non{classical logics, Logics in AI, Modal Substructrual Logics, Amalgamating Logics, Labelled Deductive Systems

In recent years there has been considerable research on theorem proving in non{ classical logics (modal, intuitionistic, etc.). Methodologies suggested are mainly derived from the Gentzen Sequent Calculus Gen69] (cut{free, or analytic cut), such as resolution, tableaux, etc. (See Fit83, Min88, HP92, Wal90, Gab92, Gal86] for examples.) Automated proof search systems for non{classical logics are particularly important, since these logics are now widely applied in theoretical computer science (Temporal, Dynamic, Linear Logics) and arti cial intelligence (Epistemic, Non-Monotonic Logics, etc.). Although the proposed systems have been quite successful, they generally su er from a number of drawbacks: sequent calculus, while being the chief device for classical, linear and intuitionistic logics, is not particularly well suited for intensional logics, such as modal, temporal and epistemic logics (for discussions, see BS84, BM92]); semantic tableaux, on the other hand, though they have been used for intensional logics, have not yet been fully considered for resource logics (eg. linear, relevance, the Lambek Calculus); resolution, in general, requires formulae to be in clausal form, and may require some transformations on the formulae beforehand; there seems to be a lack of exible, generic, algorithmic proof frameworks, where one can simply apply a straightforward parameter{change to extract a new proof search system for a new logic from one for an existing logic. From a radically new perspective, Gabbay has recently proposed a method as an attempt to tackle some of these problems. He introduces a new general proof{ theoretic framework | the Labelled Deductive Systems (LDS) Gab90] incorporating resource, intensional, temporal and non{monotonic logics in a uni ed manner. Its motivation is based on the need for a general and uniform algorithmic system of deduction which is expressive enough to represent a wide range of procedural variations \declaratively", as variations of the logic, and the transition from one logic to an other as a simple parameter{change process. This is especially important considering the wide range of non{classical logics now available for computing science and arti cial intelligence applications. The underlying idea is the use of labels, alongside the formulae of the logic, to place explicit (semantic) information, such as temporal ordering, resource usage or priorities in the proof structure. The transition process is achieved simply by changing the rules of the label algebra and the discipline for labelling the logic. The Labelled Deductive System o ers several advantages: it is very generic and exible. As mentioned, one only needs to \switch" a parameter in order to obtain a new proof system for a new logic; it handles extensional (classical) and intensional (modal, intuitionistic, resource) logics in a systematic and uniform way; it provides a bridge between proof{theoretic results and mechanisation details. In many respects, LDS combines features from tableaux and Natural Deduction Gen69, Pra65]. But it also caters for non{monotonic logics. 2

1 Introduction

We describe some results on an extension of Gabbay's Labelled Deductive Systems (LDS) Gab90] for the case of a modal substructural logic. A weak implicational logic { Concatenation Logic, due to Gabbay Gab90], is combined with a modal operator as a case study. The logic is considered to be a resource logic Gir87, Ben91, Roo91, Avr88], and a fragment of the Lambek Calculus Lam58]. This type of logic has recently attracted considerable attention in theoretical computer science Abr93], and also has applications to natural language processing Ben91] and AI planning Hol92, MTV90]. The logic is not completely arbitrary. It is chosen for speci c reasons: modal extension of weak implicational Lambek Logic has applications in linguistics MLHB90]. Note that there is already some work on using LDS and modal substructural logics for natural language (Parsing{as{Deduction paradigm) and categorial theorem proving Moo91]. The mathematical aspects of modal resource logics (using modality for controlling restricted permutation for categorial grammar in linguistics) have been studied recently Kur92, Ven93, Roo92]; the tableaux method works well with intensional logics, but has not been previously applied to weaker, resource{sensitive, substructural logics. On the other hand, Sequent calculus is often used for the latter cases. We deliberately choose a logic with features from two ends of the scale in order to test the generality and versatiliity of LDS; modal operators have already been used in Linear Logic Gir87] to substitute for structural rules in the Sequent Calculus. In general, however, it is not yet clear how to add modality to any weaker logical systems, both proof{ theoretically and semantically. Again, we examine the LDS approach; Gabbay suggests that LDS is a suitable framework for the study of logics which combine diverse features, such as Modality and Resources Gab90]. We verify his informal claim by this case study; we believe our approach can be generalised to other modal substructural logics. The investigation begins with the syntax and axioms for this modal concatenation logic. Then a semantics, which is a two{dimensional generalisation of the Kripke{ Urquhart style Urq72], is given. Semantics is important from the LDS point of view because the label algebra (proof rules) is extracted from the semantic information. This is not entirely new. In modal theorem proving Fit83, Wal90], possible worlds are often used to assist deduction. Soundness and completeness results are also proved. We brie y indicate possible mechanisation strategies. The content of the paper is as follows: in section 2 we give an overview of the basics of Labelled Deductive Systems and its philosophy; in section 3, we introduce the syntax of the logic and the label algebra; in section 4 we give the de nition of semantics for the logic; in section 5 a Hilbert Axiomatic system and a Gabbay LDS proof system are provided for the logic; section 6 shows the proof systems are sound and 3

1.1 Case Study: Modal Concatenation Logic

1.2 Content

that LDS proof strength for the logic is equivalent to the axiomatic presentation; in section 7 we prove the completeness with respect to the semantics; in section 8 mechanisational merits are discussed; nally in section 9 we discuss further works. We do not claim that the LDS approach o ers any greater degree of e ciency, though some specially tuned implementations may deliver desirable results. Rather, we emphasise its generic and conceptual contributions. Note that in the LDS research programme , D'Agostino and Gabbay have recently been investigating a Labelled Refutation System { a tableau extended with labels based on the LDS DG92]. A study of their results in conjunction with the ones reported here would also be of interest. These are just a few of many on{going research projects on the LDS and its extensions. This section introduces some basic concepts of Labelled Deductive Systems (LDS) Gab90]. In LDS, we consider logics where the basic declarative unit is not just the formula A of the language, but the labelled formula : A. The traditional consequence relation: A ; : : :; An ` B ie. a deduction of B from a sequence of assumptions A ; : : : ; An is replaced by: : A ; : : :; n : An ` : B Intuitively, the labels represent relevant aspects of the structure of the database of assumptions which the logic is sensitive to. The consequence relation is de ned on rules which operate on both formulae (connectives) and labels. We have to indicate in the labelling algebra how the labels propagate between premises and conclusions. Depending on the logic, the labels can be: resource usage counters for eg. linear and relevance logics ; names of the possible worlds in modal logic ; -terms, and formulae as types , in which case it corresponds to the Curry{ Howard interpretation . These labels (semantic or meta{theoretic \book keeping" information) are put alongside the logic, but separately, at the object level. At each deduction step, constraints on the label (algebra) must be respected. As for the exibility of LDS, we simply change the constraints on the labels to extract a new proof system. For example,
1 1 1 1 1 2 3

2 Basics of Labelled Deductive Systems

For instance, the idempotent axiom of the label algebra will be representing contraction in the structural rules of the sequences. So, accounting on the labels corresponds to the resource constraints on the logic level 2 The binary relation on the label algebra will be representing the accessibility relation at the syntactic level. Constraints on the binary relation will therefore correspond to characteristics of the logic. For example, for classical modal logic S4, the binary relation on the labels at syntactic level will be re exive and transitive 3 Note that LDS subsumes the formulae{as{types paradigm GdQ92, Gab90]
1

1. changing the binary relation on the labels to re exive, symmetric and transitive , we get a system for modal S5. 2. if we relax the resource label constraints from used each assumption exactly once to used all assumptions , we get a new deductive system for Relevance Logic from the existing one for Linear Logic. Formally, an LDS system is a triple h?; G; F i, where ? is a logic language (connectives and w s), G is an algebra (with appropriate operations) of labels and F is a discipline of labelling formulas of the logic (from the algebra of labels G), together with deduction rules and with agreed ways of propagating the labels via the application of the rules. A label sequence i together with a formula A, ie. i : A, forms a declarative unit in the LDS.

2.1 Formal De nitions and Rules Formation

2.2 Rules Formations

Here, we present an example of LDS{style rules. Let the logic ? be just an alphabet of propositional letters with one connective f!g. The algebra of labels G will be a frame hA; i where A is the set of generators with elements x; y 2 A and \ " is the operation on A. The axiom of the algebra is just associativity . The labelling discipline F is that whenever the Introduction (Goal) rule is applied, assumption along its label must be discharged. When the Elimination (Data) rule is used, the label must be applied to the Right Hand Side which corresponds to function application . The rules are presented as follows:

y : A]

x y:B f! Ig x:A!B Prima facie, it looks like a rather trival variant of Natural Deduction. But this is in fact not the case. The labels give a far greater and ner (algorithmic) control of assumptions usage and discharge. This in particularly important in mechanising proof search. Another example is the use of labels as \tags" on the possible worlds in Modal Logics. The rules below are more or less follow the possible worlds interpretation. Note that \arb" denotes arbitrary world and \exi" denotes an existing world in the rules.
arb u; u : A; exi w; wRu f2Ig w : 2A

y:A x:A!B f! Eg x y:B

w : 2A; arb u; wRu f2Eg u:A

Some examples of LDS proofs in Fitch's Box Style are presented. The validity conditions for proofs are: (1) When the outermost box exits, it must exit with ;, ie. empty label. This corresponds to Natural Deduction proofs where all assumptions 5

2.3 Some examples of LDS Proofs

used must be discharged. A theorem is deduction with no undischarged assumption remaining. (2) labels are discharged at the Right Most Side of the Label Sequence, which is like removing an item at the end of the queue , as we see in the example below. Depending on the label algebra of the logic, we can prove theorems of di erent logics. In the Relevance Logic example below, the label algebra operates on a Set , where each assumption is used , but there is no restriction on the number of usages. It also has a left identity ;. Note that, because our label algebra is associative , a can be discharged at the end of the sequences, and parenthesis is ignored. But it is not a theorem of Linear Logic, because two copies of a are used. The underlying structure for Linear Logic will be a Multiset where each occurence of the label will be accounted for. In discharging the assumptions, two copies of a are removed as indicated below.
2 2 2

1 2 3

a :A Goal : B 4 a a :A!B !E 5 (a a ) a : B !E 6 a :A!B discharge 2 copies of a ; ! I 7 ; : (A ! (A ! B )) ! (A ! B ) discharge a ; ! I So, the critical part of the system in distinguishing logics is at the discharging of assumptions. For Relevance and Linear Logics, we label each assumption, but will \block" the proof if required discharging one label (Linear) only. For another example of LDS meta{proof box, see section 6. The label algebras for various logics in some sense \axiomatise" the underlying data structures in the LDS . The following is a summary of the underlying Data Structure of the label algebra for various logics: Intuitionistic No Restriction Relevance Set Linear Multiset Concatenation Logic List or Queue Modal S4 Ref., Trans., Relations Modal S5 Ref., Sym., Trans. Relations We have explained some of the basics of LDS. Readers are advised to consult Gabbay's forthcoming book Gab90] for detailed exposition.
2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 4

; : (A ! (A ! B )) ! (A ! B ) a : (A ! (A ! B )) Goal : (A ! B )
1

We present the syntax of Modal Concatenation Logic (MCL). The presentation is in two parts. The rst part is simply the ordinary syntax of the logic; in the second
For example, if the label algebra is associative , with a left identity , then it will be a \list"; added permutation axiom, then it will be a \multiset" where usage order is unimportant; added idempotent axiom, then it will be a \set", since it is not sensitive to the number of usages.
4

3 Syntax

part we present the label extension of the logic (labelled formulae) for LDS. The Concatenation logic (CL), due to Gabbay Gab90], can be regarded as the = fragment of the full Lambek Calculus h ; n; =i. An additional modal operator 2 is added to the language (MCL). Since it is known that the Lambek Calculus is a non-commutative fragment of Intuitionistic Linear Logic (see Ben91] for some interesting discussions of the relations), we use Girard's notation, ie. h? i. The formula A ? B in the language should be read as B=A in the Lambek Calculus.

De nition 3.1 (Syntax of Modal Concatenation Logic (MCL)) Let L = h ; ? ; 2i be the language of Modal Concatenation Logic with countable (atomic) alphabet , and let A; B 2 L. The syntax of the logic is de ned in naive
BNF:
5

L ::== j A ? B j 2L

Prima facie, the syntax of label algebra may look complicated. But it is nothing more than ordered pair (two sorted) relational semigroup with a left identity. Note that the \algebra" is an entirely syntactic entity in the LDS as parts of the proof structure, and it is not a semantics or Lindenbaum algebra construction. De nition 3.2 (Syntax of the Labels) Let the set of label I (ordered sorted pair) be partitioned into Res W , ie. I = h(Res; Res ; ;Res); (W; 0W ); I ; ;Res W i where: Res is a set of resource labels: 1. ;Res 2 Res; 2. if r is an atomic label, then r 2 Res 3. if r; s 2 Res, then r Res s 2 Res W is a set of possible worlds labels, with 0W 2 W (for the actual world ); Note that the subscription of \ " indicates the sort it operates on. For example, I operates on the sort I . We now pair up the two together as two{sorted labelled set I: ;Res W 2 I ; if (r; w); (r0; w0) 2 I , then (r; w) I (r0; w0) 2 I where r; r0 2 Res and w; w0 2 W if (r; w); (r0; w0) 2 I then (r Res r0; w) 2 I , where r; r0 2 Res and w = w0 2 W If w 6= w0, where w; w0 2 W , then one cannot \push" the operator I inside to Res . The label algebra is uniquely de ned as above and nothing else is in I . So, for a labelled formula ( ; w) : 2A ? B , the will be the resource Res, and w will be the possible worlds W . The formula 2A ? B will simply be a w of the logic. The i 2 I together with l 2 L, ie. i : l form what Gabbay calls declarative units (labelled formulae) in the LDS framework.
5

Note that, like the Lambek Calculus Ben91], MCL does not have negation in the language.

De nition 4.1 (Consistency) Let Fma(L) be the set of all w s generated by the language L. The logic MCL (L) is said to be consistent if for all ? Fma(L), there exists a X 2 Fma(L) such that ? 0 X . De nition 4.2 (Model) A model is a quintuple M = hS; ; R; ;; h i, where:
6

4 Models and Satisfaction

S is a non{empty set of possible worlds containing sequences of formulae, is a semi{group operator on S with a left identity ;. R is any binary accessibility relation R S S , ; 2 S is the actual world (empty sequence of formulae). h : Sequence of formulae (Seq(L)) atomic(L) ?! f0; 1g h is an extension of h where h : Sequence of formulae (Seq(L)) formula(L) ?! f0; 1g

De nition 4.3 (Validity) A is valid i h(;; A) = 1 8h, i it is true in all models

M

De nition 4.4 (Satisfaction) A formula A is satis able w.r.t. a sequence ? i there is an assignment h such that h(?; A) = 1.

4.1 Semantics

De nition 4.5 (Semantics) Let ?,

be sequences of formulae, is the binary concatenation operator on sequences and B , C are any w s. h (?; q) = 1 () ? ` q and atomic(q); h(?; B ? C ) = 1 () 8 ; h( ; B ) = 1 ) h(? ; C ) = 1; h(?; 2B ) = 1 () 8 ; ?R ) h( ; B ) = 1; where ` is de ned by either a LDS or a Hilbert Axiomatic System in the proof theory. Note that the semantics is simply a generalisation of the Kripke{Urquhart style semantics for relevance logic. A survey of frames for the modal{free Lambek Calculus can be found in Dos92]. This section presents the proof theory of Modal Concatenation Logic (MCL). It is done in two parts. The rst part is the axiomatisation in Hilbert{style. The second part is shown as a Labelled Deductive System.

5 Proof Theory

6 In other words, there is at least one formula which is not a theorem. We use this because it does not have negation.

The following is an axiomatisation of MCL: Identity A? A Pre xing (A ? B ) ? ((C ? A) ? (C ? B )) Modal K 2(A ? B ) ? (2A ? 2B ) plus Modens Ponens and Necessitation rules.

5.1 Hilbert Axiomatisation

5.2 Labelled Deductive System Presentation of MCL

Recall that a LDS is a triple h?; G; F i, where ? is the logic; G is the label set and F is the labelling discipline. For this logic, ? is the MCL; G is the set of (two{sorted) labels, ie. one for resources and the other possible worlds labels; and F is the axioms and rules for the Label algebra and the logic. We assume there are countably many labels, ordered by natural numbers, in G.

The label algebra, as de ned in 3.2, is associative with a left identity ;. Let I be (Res; W ). We allow identity and \ " to be pushed inside to the resource part, where it operates over di erent sorts : ;I I (a; w) = (;Res Res a; w) = (a; w) ((a; w) =I (b; w)) () (a =Res b) (a; w) I (b; w) = (a Res b; w) The subscripts for \ " indicate the sorts which they \operate" on. Note that \ " can only operate if the labels are at the same world , ie. (a; w) (b; w), where it is the same w. Also note that \arb" denotes an arbitrary world and \exi" denotes an existing world in the rules below.

5.3 Axioms for Order{sorted Pair Label Algebra

LDS Rules

(y; w) : A]

(x; w) (y; w) : B f? Ig (x; w) : A ? B arb u; (r; u) : A; exi w; wRu f2Ig (r; w) : 2A

(y; w) : A (x; w) : A ? B f? Eg (x; w) (y; w) : B (r; w) : 2A; arb u; wRu f2Eg (r; u) : A

We describe the conditions of valid proofs for MCL in LDS. A proof is valid when it exits the outermost box with the empty label, ie. ;, indicating a deduction with no undischarged assumptions, which is hence a theorem. 9

5.4 Conditions for Valid Proofs

The sequence of labels satisfy the algebraic conditions stated earlier: (1) Each assumption must be used exactly once . (2) Assumptions must be in the correct order in the labelled sequences, ie. = ft : A ; : : :; tn : Ang `LDS C if the proof label sequence for C is ft ; : : :; tng.
1 1 1

6 Soundness Result

This section we prove the soundness result. First part, we show that the LDS proof system for MCL is equal in strength with the Hilbert axioms presentation. Next, we prove the LDS rules are sound with respect to the semantics. Notation 6.1 To avoid syntactical overload , unless stated speci cally, \`" is used instead of \`LDS " for the rest of this section. Also, \I.H." stands for Inductive Hypothesis . For the non{modal case, labels will be x instead of (x; w) since the world part plays no role in the proof.

6.1 Soundness

We show the soundness result via two ways. First is to verify our LDS with respect to the Hilbert{Style axioms and rules; next is to show that each deduction step preserve the semantics. Theorem 6.1 `Hilbert A if{and{only{if `LDS A Proof For the \if" part, we directly verifying each axiom with respect to the LDS. In other words, we would like to show that the each axiom is derivable from the LDS calculus. The non-modal propositional case is straight forward, as it is shown in Gab90]. We show the Modal K Axiom as an example below:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

; : 2(A ? B ) ? (2A ? 2B ) (a ; w) : 2(A ? B ) Goal : 2A ? 2B

1 2

(a ; w) : 2A (a ; u) : A ? B (a ; u) : A (a ; u) (a ; u) : B (a a ; u) : B (a a ; w) : 2B (a ; w) : 2A ? 2B ; : 2(A ? B ) ? (2A ? 2B )
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Goal : 2B arb u; wRu; 2E arb u; wRu; 2E a <a ; ? E ` 0 law 2I ? I; ` 0 law ?I

1 2

The proof is valid since each label (assumption) is used exactly once and we exit the metabox with label ;. Thus we have showed our LDS proof is sound with respect to the Hilbert axioms of Modal Concatenation Logic. 10

For the \only{if", we have to show by induction on the proof sequence in the metabox. We outline the modal case below. Other cases have been shown in Gab90, page 95{98]. Case Axiom K Let K be the modal K axiom. Suppose `Hilbert K . Assume (Ass) 2(A ? B ), where A and B contain non{atomic sub-formulae. Apply (Ass) to the K axiom via Moden Ponens, we get 2(A ? B ) `Hilbert 2A ? 2B as expected. Now by LDS Goal Rules (2E and ? E ), we get A implies B in the deduction step. By induction, we know that LDS preserves the validity of A and B sub-formulae in the length of the deduction. By 2I and ? I Data Rules, we get 2A ? 2B , which is the same as `Hilbert above. So, by LDS ? I Data Rule, we prove `LDS K axiom. This proves the theorem as required. Theorem 6.2 Let ? be a sequence of formulae, A be any formula and h be the valuation function. If ? `LDS A then h(?; A) = 1 Proof Let ? ` A denote ? `LDS A. Assume ? ` A and show by induction on each derivation step that h(?; A) = 1. fBase Caseg If A is atomic, then we verify directly on the semantic de nition. fCase ? g Assume ? ` A? B and h(?; A? B ) = 0. Let ? = fx : A : : : xn : Ang. By LDS rules, we get a proof sequence of (x : A ; : : : ; xn : An) : A ? B . Using the (? -E), then for any (y : C ; : : :; yk : Ck ) : A implies (x : A ; : : : ; xn : An) (y : C ; : : : ; yk : Ck ) : B is deduced. By I.H., h((C ; : : :; Ck ); A) = 1 implies h((A ; : : :; An; C ; : : :; Ck ); B ) = 1. By semantics, h((A ; : : :; An); A ? B ) = 1 which contradicts our assumption. So, h(?; A ? B ) = 1. fCase 2 g Assume ? ` 2B and h(?; 2B ) = 0 . Let ? = f(x ; w) : A ; : : :; (xn; w) : Ang. By LDS rules, we get a proof sequence of ((x ; w) : : : (xn ; w)) : 2B . Using the (2-E), ((x ; u) : A0 ; : : : ; (xn; u) : A0n) : B , where 8((x ; u) : A0 ; : : : ; (xn; u) : A0n) 2 Res W and wRu, is deduced. Hence, we have a proof sequence f(x ; : : :; xn; u)g for B . By I.H., h(A0 ; : : : ; A0n; B ) = 1, where (A ; : : :; An)Rseq?worlds (A0 ; : : :; A0n) and wRu. By semantic de nition, h((A ; : : : ; An); 2B ) = 1 . which contradicts our assumption. This proves the soundness result with respect to the semantics.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

In this section, we prove completeness relative to the semantics. There are several points of which readers should take note. 1. The purpose of completeness here is to show that LDS proves exactly all the valid sentences only. 2. Unlike most proofs, the result is very much syntactically driven and \bounded" to LDS. The reason for this are LDS incorporates semantic features into the deduction system; 11

7 Completeness Result

we want to use LDS as a general framework, such that once semantics and proof theory are presented, completeness (if true) should be obtainable fairly directly. 3. Adding modality to a weak Concatenation Logic is by no means simple. On the contrary, because we have no structural rules, standard classical techniques need not be applicable. Others, eg. Roo92, Ven93, Kur92] have used sophisticated techniques for completeness. 4. The de nition of Canonical Proof Sequences is very important, as explained by Gabbay Gab90, pages 135]. While it may look complicated, the resulting structure does simplify the proof of lemma 7.3 (Fundamental Lemma). It plays a similar role to canonical models in the completeness proof of classical modal logic.

Notation 7.1 In the proof, ` denotes `LDS , `MCL denotes consequence in MCL, `canonical denotes the Canonical Proof of the logic (see def. 7.2) in LDS, \I.H."

denotes Inductive Hypothesis . ?; denote sequences of formulae, and A; q denote a formula. Rseq?formu denotes \accessibility relation" over sequences of formulae; RI denotes \accessibility relation" over individual labels of the sort I ; both are syntactic entities. The subscripts of R and indicate the sorts . We omit them in obvious cases.

De nition 7.1 (Canonical Model) We de ne the canonical model as follows:

S is a consistent set of nite sequences (possibly empty) of formulae; is a concatenation operator on the sequence in S ; ? ` 2A i (?Rseq?formu =) ` A) h (?; q) = 1 () ? ` q, for any atomic q;

In this subsection, we de ne and show the construction of Canonical Proof Sequence Structure which is an extension of Gabbay's de nition Gab90, pages 135].

7.1 Canonical Proof Sequence structure

De nition 7.2 (Canonical Proof Sequence Structure)

1 1 1

1. A labelled sequence of MCL formulas = (a : A ; : : : ; a : A ) is a canonical proof sequence from a database = fti : Big; t < : : : < tn if and only if each labelled formula in sequence satis es one of the following conditions: Ai is a theorem of MCL and ai = 0 Ai is either atomic or an implication and is obtained from two previous elements aj : Ak ? Ai and ak : Ak ; j; k < i by modus ponens and ai = aj ak . Ai is a repetition of Aj ; j < i, and Ai = Aj ; ai = aj . 12

Ai is of the form 2(Ai) for all 1 i n and we have (a : 2A ; : : :; an : 2An ) which is a canonical0 proof sequence from ft : B ; : : :; tn : Bng and tiRI si and BiRseq?formu Bi then (a0 : A ; : : :; a0n : An) is a canonical proof 0 g. sequence from fs : B 0 ; : : : ; sn : Bn the label ti of (ti : Ai) is atomic, corresponding to an assumption, tj : Bj and Ai = Bj and ti = tj . a = (t ; : : :; tn) 2. Let = (A ; : : :; An) be a sequence of w s of MCL. We say that `canonical B if when labelling as ft : A ; : : : ; tn : Ang, t < : : : < tn, then there exists a canonical proof sequence with last elements (t ; : : :; tn) : B .
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Theorem 7.1 (Canonical Proof) `MCL A i `Canonical MCL A

( )

Proof: By induction on the proof steps. This is simple extension of Gabbay's result Gab90, pg 135].

7.2 Completeness: Some useful lemmas

The basic canonical model for the logic is based on Gabbay's approach in Gab90, pg130]. We use the construction of Canonical Proof Sequence Structure as de ned in the previous subsection. In addition, we need a lemma Gab90, page 91] due to Gabbay: Lemma 7.1 (Deduction Theorem) Let Ai, B be any formulae of MCL and ai be a label, then (a : A ; : : : ; an : An) `MCL (a ; : : : ; an) : B () `MCL ; : A ? (A ? : : : ? (An ? B ) : : :) Proof See Gab90, page 91]. Lemma 7.2 If ? 0 2A, then 9 , where ?R such that 0 A Proof Assume ? 0 2A. By the de nition of canonical model (de nition 7.1), we conclude 9 , where ?R such that 0 A immediately.
1 1 1 1 2

Let X be the set of all sequence of the forms as de ned in de nition 7.2. We de ne an assignment h on X by: h( ; q) = 1 () `canonical q

De nition 7.3 (Assignment)

Lemma 7.3 (Canonical Structure) h((A ; : : : ; An); B ) = 1 () (A ; : : :; A ) `canonical B

1 1

Proof

By induction on the complexity of the formulae. The proof made used of the canonical model de nition 7.1, and lemma 7.2 . f Base Case g By applying the de nition directly. 13

f Case ? g Let ? = (A ; : : : ; An) and = (X ; : : :; Xn ). Assume h(?; B ? C ) = 1

1 1 1 1

Then, by semantics, for all , where B holds, C also holds at (A; X ). Let x : B where x is a new atomic label. So, we have B holds at x : B and C holds at (?; B ). Hence, by I.H., we get (?; B ) `canonical C . Thus there exists a label such that (a : A ; : : :; an : An; x : B; : C ) is a canonical proof sequence based on t : A ; : : :; tn : An; x : B . By canonical condition above, we get = (t ; : : :; tn; x) . This means we must have An = B ? C already as de ned by our proof theory. Thus. we have (a : A ; : : : ; an : An; an : B ? C ). Hence, ? `canonical B ? C . Conversely, assume ? `canonical B ? C . Hence, ((a : A ; : : : ; an : An); An = B ? C ) is a canonical proof sequence. Let x : B , then it is easy to see that ((a : A ; : : : ; an : An; x : B ) for C . By I.H., we get h((?; ); C ) = 1, for any where B holds. By semantic de nition, h( ; B ? C ) = 1. f Case 2 g Let ? = (A ; : : :; An) and = (X ; : : : ; Xn ). Asssume h(?; 2B ) = 1 and ? 0 2B . By semantics, 8 , ?R ) h( ; B ) = 1, By I.H., ?R ) ` B . Since ? 0 2B , using lemma 7.2, we get 0 B . But by the de nition of R in the canonical model (de nition 7.1), this is contradictory. Next we shall show that this is indeed ? `canonical 2B . Let ((a ; w) : A ; : : :; (an; w) : An; ( ; w) : 2B ) be the a proof sequence of this derivation. Using the contruction above, we know that (ai; w)RI (ai; u) and AiRseq?formu Xi , ((a ; u) : X ; : : :; (an; u) : Xn ; ( ; u) : B ). Hence, this satis es the conditions for canonical proof sequence stated in de nition 7.2. So, this is indeed an canonical proof sequence. Conversely, assume ? `canonical 2B . Let any ; ?R . By de nition 7.1, we get ` B . Using similar argument as above on the labels, it is easy to see that it is indeed a canonical proof sequence, ie. `canonical B . By I.H., h( ; B ) = 1. Since ?R implies h( ; B ) = 1, by the semantics, h(?; 2B ) = 1 . This proves the lemma as required.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Theorem 7.2 (Completeness) If 0 A then h(;; A) = 0 Observe that `MCL A () `canonical A. Assume 0MCL A, using lemma 7.3 above, we get h(;; A) = 0. This completes the proof as required.
Proof

One of the main objectives of Labelled Deductive System is to automate deduction of various non{classical logic in generic way using the structures of labels. There has been a number of proposals: extend tableaux with labels. This has been currently investigated by D'Agostino and Gabbay in DG92]. We possibly need a two{dimensional extension on the tableaux for modal concatenation logic, which has not been considered in their work so far; viewing labels structure (algebra) as constraints and regard deduction as resolving constraints (constraint solving as theorem proving). We also take advantages of some the existing constraint logic programming technologies. 14

8 Mechanisation

A goal directed prover implemented in Prolog based on our LDS approach is also possible. Note that the simple \parameter{switching" philosophy behind the exibility of LDS is naturally carried over to the Prolog implementation. Other variations are also under consideration. We claim in this paper that Gabbay's LDS is a good system for proof search in non{ classical logics, by showing how it handles a logic with both resource and modal features. This partially veri es some of Gabbay's claims in Gab90]. The result also shows that the LDS is highly generic and exible, and can be implemented directly. Further work should include the investigations of tableaux extension with labels DG92], combinations of other variants possibly using Gabbay's Fibred Semantics and e cient implementation in Prolog. Natasha Kurtonina and the author will be looking at some of these possibilities. We believe our approach can be extended to any variant which combines substructurality and modality.

9 Conclusion

Acknowledgement I thank Dov Gabbay, Simon Gay, Rose Gibson, Ian Hodkinson,

Natasha Kurtonina, Ian Mackie, Dirk Roorda, Mark Ryan, Yde Venema, Steven Vickers and the anonymous referees for their helpful discussions and commments.

References
Abr93] Avr88] Ben91] BM92] BS84] DG92] Dos92] Fit83]

S. Abramsky. Computational Interpretation of Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 111:3{57, 1993. Earlier version appeared as Imperial College Technical Report DOC 90/20, October 1990. A. Avron. The Semantics and Proof Theory of Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 57:161{184, 1988. J. F. A. K. van Benthem. Language in Action. North{Holland, 1991. M. Benevides and T. S. E. Maibaum. A constructive presentation for the modal connective of necessity. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(1):31{50, 1992. R. A. Bull and K. Segerberg. Basic Modal Logic. In D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume II, pages 1{88. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984. M. D'Agostino and D. M. Gabbay. Labelled refutation systems: A study of substructural logics. Draft Manuscript, Imperial College, November 1992. K. Dosen. A brief survey of frames for the Lambek Calculus. Zeit. f. mathe. Logik & Grund. Mathe, 38:179{187, 1992. M. C. Fitting. Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983. 15

Gab90]

D. M. Gabbay. Labelled Deductive Systems { Part I. Technical Report CIS 90 { 22, CIS, U. Munchen, Dec 1990. Draft Version 5, OUP (Forthcoming). Gab92] D. M. Gabbay. Elements of Algorithmic Proof. In S. Abramsky, D. M. Gabbay, and T. S. E. Maibaum, editors, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, volume II, pages 311{413. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1992. Gal86] J. H. Gallier. Logic for Computer Science. Harper & Row, 1986. GdQ92] D. M. Gabbay and R. J. G. B. de Queiroz. Extending Curry-Howard interpretation to Linear, Relevance and other resource logics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 57:1319{1365, Dec 1992. Gen69] G. Gentzen. Untersuchungen uber das logische Schliessen (English: Investigations into Logical Deduction). In M. E. Szabo, editor, Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen. North{Holland, 1969. Gir87] J.-Y. Girard. Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1{102, 1987. Hol92] S. Holldobler. On deductive planning and the frame problem. In A. Voronkov, editor, Proceedings of Inter. Conf. LPAR'92, pages 13{ 29, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 1992. LNAI, Springer{Verlag. HP92] J. A. Harland and D. J. Pym. On resolution in fragments of classical linear logic. In A. Voronkov, editor, Proceedings of Inter. Conf. LPAR'92, pages 30{41, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 1992. LNAI, Springer{Verlag. Kur92] Natasha Kurtonina. On modal extension of the lambek calculus. Manuscript, Cent. Logic, Cath. Univ. Leuven, Dec 1992. Lam58] J. Lambek. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65:154{170, 1958. Min88] G.E. Mints. Gentzen{type systems and resolution rules part 1: Propositional logic. In P. Martin-Lof and G.E. Mints, editors, Proceedings of COLOG{88. LNCS, Springer{Verlag, 1988. MLHB90] G. Morrill, N. Leslie, M. Hepple, and G. Barry. Categorial deductions and structural operations. In G. Barry and G. Morrill, editors, Studies in Categorial Grammar, volume 5. Cent. Cog. Sci., Edinburgh, 1990. Working Papers. Moo91] M. Moortgat. Labelled deductive systems for categorial theorem proving (extended abstract). In Proceedings of 8th Amsterdam Colloquium, 1991. (Also, Research Report, OTS Utrecht). MTV90] M. Masseron, C. Tollu, and J. Vauzielles. Generating plans in linear logic. In Proceedings of the 10th FST{TCS. LNCS, Springer{Verlag, 1990. 16

Pra65] Roo91] Roo92] Urq72] Ven93] Wal90]

D. Prawitz. Natural Deduction : A Proof-Theoretic Study. Almqvist and Wiksell, Uppsala, Sweden, 1965. D. Roorda. Resource Logics { Proof Theoretical Investigations. PhD thesis, FWI, Univ. Amsterdam, The Netherland, September 1991. D. Roorda. Lambek Calculus and Boolean Connectives: On the road. Working Papers OTS{WP-CL-92-004, OTS, U. Utrecht, 1992. A. Urquhart. Semantics of Relevant Logics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37(1):159{169, 1972. Y. Venema. Meeting strength in substructural logics. Logic Group Preprint Series 38, Dept. of Phil., U. Utrecht,, Jan 1993. L. A. Wallen. Automated Proof Search in Non{Classical Logics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.

17