Proof Theory Corner

Cyclic Involutive Distributive Full Lambek

Calculus is Decidable
MICHA KOZAK, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Adam
Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 87, 61-614 Poznan, Poland.
E-mail: mk@amu.edu.pl
Abstract
We prove the decidability of the extension CyInDFL of DFL (Distributive Full Lambek Calculus), in which the involutive
law is derivable under the assumption of cyclicity. So far, the decidability of this logic has been an open problem (Galatos et al.,
2007, Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse at Substructural Logics, Elsevier). We present a Gentzen-style consecution
calculus which is complete with respect to the class of cyclic involutive distributive full Lambek algebras (CyInDFL). It is an
extension of the system DFL introduced by the author (2009, Stud. Log., 91, 201216). We prove the cut elimination theorem
for this system, and give a procedure of building a finite proof-search tree for any consecution.
Keywords: Full Lambek calculus, residuated lattice, distributive lattice, cyclicity, involution, cut elimination,
decidability.

Introduction

Galatos et al. [15] pointed out (p. 219) that the decidability of the equational theory of cyclic involutive
full Lambek algebras (CyInFL) had been shown by Yetter [30] using proof-theoretic methods and
algebraically by Wille [29]. At the same book they indirectly raised the issue of the decidability of
its distributive cousin by indicating (p. 229) that its commutative variant CyInDFLe has a decidable
equational theory.1 This result is due to Galatos and Raftery [16], who showed that the algebraic
semantics (in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi [5]) for RW (the contraction-free subsystem of the relevant
logic R) is the variety InDFLe (i.e. CyInDFLe , since cyclicity is a consequence of commutativity).2
The decidability of RW was earlier established by Brady [7] using Giambrones decidability argument
for RW+ [17] (the positive fragment of RW). Both those results were based on Dunns Gentzenization
of R+ [1, 12].3 We should recall that independently of Dunn, Mints [23] introduced an analogous
Gentzen-style system for R+ supplemented with an additional S4 style necessity operator. These two
quite novel systems were a huge success, since seeking a Gentzen-style system in which distribution
can be proven had been a major problem for relevance logic (we refer to [1, 2] for history and
details).
Both of these (Dunn and Mints) innovations consist in allowing an antecedent of a sequent to
be a structure built from extensional and intensional structures inductively, with their own sets of
rules for these two kinds of structures. Due to this change, sequents were renamed consecutions.

1 The naming convention corresponds to the one adopted for basic substructural logics, where subscripts stand for structural
rules determining properties of fusion [15]; e stands for exchange which just makes fusion commutative: x y = yx.
2 Cyclicity (so named by Yetter [30] because of his rule of cyclic permutation) means that right and left negations coincide;
commutativity makes that right and left residuals coincide, where from cyclicity follows (see Section 2 for details).
3 To be accurate, mentioned relevant logics are often denoted in the literature with the addition of t , since Dunns
Gentzenization covers R+ conservatively enriched by the logical connective and the logical constant t.

Vol. 21 No. 2, The Author, 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Published online 24 September 2010 doi:10.1093/logcom/exq021

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 231

231252

232 CyInDFL is Decidable

Providing a decision procedure for that consecution calculi in the case of the lack of the contraction
rule for intensional structures was great Giambrones success. Brady cleverly extended this reasoning
to calculi with signed formulas (formulas preceded by the sign T or F). Earlier such extension of a
sequent calculus by signed formulas for RW without distribution was done by Bull [8].4
Status of the decidability of Dunn and Mints systems, and consequently, the logic R+ is still
unknown. Only what we know is that the logic R is undecidable (by the famous result of Urquhart
[28]). From this fact it follows immediately that the equational theory of the commutative and squareincreasing variant of CyInDFL (i.e. CyInDFLec and InDFLec ) is undecidable.5 This result is due
to Dunns algebraization of R extended with the mentioned constant t corresponding to the identity
element of de Morgan monoids [11] and the fact that the class of de Morgan monoids coincides with
InDFLec [13, 15]. We should recall that the algebraization of R (without t) was done much later by
Blok and Pigozzi [5].
In this article, we focus on cyclic variants of InDFL, but not necessarily with commutative fusion.
We show that all basic subvarieties of CyInDFL, except these in which fusion is square-increasing,
have decidable equational theories. The problem of the undecidability (as we conjecture) of theories
with square-increasing fusion we leave to further research.
We introduce one negation satisfying the involutive law to the Gentzenstyle system DFL [19].
The technique employed to introduce it is similar to that of Brady [6, 7], however, unlike in those
papers, we do not use signed formulas. We show completeness of the obtained system CyInDFL with
respect to CyInDFL by the construction of the LindenbaumTarski algebra. It requires adding the
cut rule to this system as well. Fortunately, as we prove by a syntactic argument, cut is eliminable.
The proof is very long and tedious it goes by triple induction involving mutual induction on
the structure of the cut formula and negation of the cut formula. It would be interesting to show
completeness and cut admissibility by the method of nuclei and quasi-embedding as well as the
finite model property [3, 14, 18, 19, 24, 29], or even strong finite model property in the case of the
non-associative variants [9, 10].
The argument for the decidability of CyInDFL is similar to that of Giambrone. This line of
reasoning was also the inspiration for Restall [26] in his display systems in the style of Belnap [4] for
many relevant logics. The heart of the matter is controlling the complexity of structures, and hence
the number of consecutions that can occur in a proof-search tree for a given consecution. Our proof
resembles both that of Giambrone and that of Restall.

Preliminaries

A monoid is an algebra of the form M = (M,,1), where is a binary operation on M, called product
or fusion, satisfying the associative law: (x y)z = x (yz), for all x,y,z M, and 1 is the unit element
for , i.e. for all x M, x 1 = 1x = x.
A lattice is an algebra of the form L = (L,,), where and are binary operations on L, called,
respectively, meet and join, which are associative: (x y)z = x (yz), (x y)z = x (yz);
commutative: x y = yx, x y = yx; and mutually absorptive: x (x y) = x, x (x y) = x.
A lattice L is distributive, if the distributive law of over holds: x (yz) (x y)(x z);
where as always a partial order relation on L is defined by: x y x y = y.
4 Bull refers to the book of Zaslavsky [31] on Nelsons logics, in which this technique of dealing with negation was carried
out for the first time.
5 Square-increasingness of fusion, i.e. x x x, is a consequence of the contraction rule, which is abbreviated by c.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 232

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 233

A residuated lattice is an algebra of the form L = (L,,,,,,1) such that (L,,) is a lattice,
(L,,1) is a monoid, and and are, respectively, right and left residual for product, i.e. they
satisfy the following conditions: x y z y x z, and x y z x z y, for all x,y,z L.
A full Lambek algebra or a FL-algebra is a residuated lattice L with a constant 0 (which can denote
arbitrary element of L). This constant 0 allows one to define two unary operations and on L,
called respectively right and left negation, by setting: x = x 0 and x = 0 x.
In any FL-algebra, by the residuation laws, there holds: x (y x) y and x y (x y). Hence,
for y = 0, we have x x and x x. A FL-algebra L is involutive, if the opposite inequalities
x x and x x hold in L as well.
A FL-algebra L is cyclic, if negations coincide: x = x, for all x L.
A FL-algebra L is distributive, if its lattice reduct (L,,) is distributive.
An involutive distributive FL-algebra can be also defined in a different way. Namely, an algebra
of the form L = (L,,,,,,,1) is an involutive distributive FL-algebra, if (L,,) is a
distributive lattice, and the following six laws hold in L: Galois residuation x y z y z
x, involution x = x = x, Galois negation x y y x, contraposition x y = x y,
associativity of residuals (x y) z = x (y z) and residuation unit 1 x = x = x 1. As it was
shown in [15], in this approach, fusion and 0 are defined via:
def

x y = (y x) = (y x),

def

0 = 1 = 1.

In the case of cyclicity, the equivalent definition is even simpler. Namely, an algebra of the form
L = (L,,,,,,1) is an cyclic involutive distributive FL-algebra, if (L,,) is a distributive
lattice, and the following five laws hold in L: Galois residuation, involution x = x, contraposition
x y = x y, associativity of residuals and residuation unit. Galois negation follows from the
remaining laws:
x y x 1 y 1 y x 1 y x y x 1 y x.

CyInDFL

According to the Section 2, we can define the system CyInDFL without fusion and 0. So, the
language of CyInDFL consists of a denumerable infinite set of variables p, q, r, ..., the constant 1,
one unary connective , four binary connectives , , and , and also the structure constant
(which corresponds to Dunns constant t) and two binary structure constructors  (which corresponds
to Dunns intensional structures constructor semicolon) and ? (which corresponds to Dunns
extensional structure constructor comma). Formulas are formed out of variables and the constant 1
by means of connectives. Structures are built from formulas and the structure constant by means of
structure constructors. Consecutions are of the form X A, where X is a structure and A is a formula
or the emptiness (they admit the empty succedent).
As above, we denote arbitrary formulas by A, B, C, ... (also the empty succedent, where it makes
sense) and structures by X, Y , Z and sometimes by V and W . By X[Y ] we denote a structure X
with a designated substructure Y , and in this context by X[Z] we denote the substitution of Z for
that particular occurrence of Y in X. We can now specify axioms and inference rules of the system
CyInDFL.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 233

231252

234 CyInDFL is Decidable

Axioms:
(Id)

AA

(1R)

(1L)

Structural rules:

( A)

X[(Y  Z)  V ] A
X[Y  (Z  V )] A

X[Y  (Z  V )] A
X[(Y  Z)  V ] A

(W )

X[Y ] A
X[Y  ] A

X[Y ] A
X[  Y ] A

(C)

X[Y  ] A
X[Y ] A

X[  Y ] A
X[Y ] A

(? A)

X[(Y ? Z) ? V ] A
X[Y ? (Z ? V )] A

X[Y ? (Z ? V )] A
X[(Y ? Z) ? V ] A

(? W )

X[Y ] A
X[Y ? Z] A

(? E)

X[Y ? Z] A
X[Z ? Y ] A

(? C)

X[Y ? Y ] A
X[Y ] A

Logical rules:

([])

X A
X  A

(1L)

X[] A
X[1] A

(1R)

X
X 1

(L)

X[A] B
X[A] B

(R)

X A
X A

(L)

X[A ? B] C
X[AB] C

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

X A
X A

X A
A  X

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

X A
AX

Page: 234

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 235

(R)

X A X B
X AB

(L)

X[A] C
X[B] C
X[(AB)] C

(R)

X A
X (AB)

(L)

X[A] C
X[B] C
X[AB] C

(R)

X A
X AB

X B
X AB

(L)

X[A] C
X[(AB)] C

X[B] C
X[(AB)] C

(R)

X A X B
X (AB)

(L)

X[B] C
Y A
X[Y  (A B)] C

(R)

AX B
X  B A
X AB

(L)

X[B  A] C
X[(A B)] C

(R)

X B
Y A
X  Y (A B)

(L)

X[B] C
Y A
X[(B A)  Y ] C

(R)

X AB
B  X A
X BA

(L)

X[A  B] C
X[(B A)] C

(R)

X A Y B
X  Y (B A)

X B
X (AB)

X[A] C
Y B
X[(A B)  Y ] C

X[A] C
Y B
X[Y  (B A)] C

Remark
The rules (R) and (R) are deliberately indicated with the symbol , since we assume them
only to prove the completeness and cut elimination theorems. In Section 6, we replace these two
rules with the corresponding rules from FL and give a simple proof of the equivalence of these two
systems.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 235

231252

236 CyInDFL is Decidable

In the standard way, the interpretation of consecutions in any cyclic involutive distributive
FL-algebra L is defined. Homomorphisms from the free algebra of formulas to L are called
assignments in L. Every assignment f is extended to structures and the empty succedent, by setting:
f () = 1,
f (X  Y ) = (f (Y ) f (X)),
f (X ? Y ) = f (X)f (Y ),

f ( ) = 1.

A consecution X A is true in a model L,f , if f (X) f (A), and valid in L, if it is true in L,f  for
any assignment f . We denote this fact by L |= X A. By |= X A, we denote the validity of X A
in all algebras from CyInDFL (the validity in CyInDFL for short).
One can show that consecutions provable in this system (these which can be obtained from axioms
by applying inference rules repeatedly) are precisely those consecutions which are valid in CyInDFL.
Soundness is straightforward we leave it as an exercise to check that all axioms are valid and all
rules preserve the validity. Completeness we will show using the construction of the Lindenbaum
Tarski algebra. It requires adding one more validity preserving rule to this system the cut rule:
(CUT )

X[A] B
Y A
.
X[Y ] B

Completeness

Our resolution is to prove that a consecution X A is provable in CyInDFL with cut, what we denote
by X A, if it is valid in CyInDFL. However, by the definition of the validity of consecutions
and the easy to prove (with the help of cut) Lemma 1 below, we can show a simpler form of the
completeness theorem: |= A B implies A B, for any formulas A,B.
Lemma 1
For any structure X and formulas A,B,C there holds:

if X[1] A, then X[] A,

if X[(B A)] C, then X[A  B] C,
if X[AB] C, then X[A ? B] C,
if X 1, then X .

In order to obtain this completeness theorem, we need some lemmas and definitions.
Lemma 2
The following rules are derivable in CyInDFL:

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

(LR)

AB
A B

(LR)

AB
C D
AC BD

(LR)

A B
C D
(AC) (BD)

(LR)

AB
C D
AC BD

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 236

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 237

(LR)
(LR)
(LR)
(LR)
(LR)

A B
C D
(AC) (BD)
AB

C D
B A
BC AD

D C

AB
C D
(A C) (B D)
AB

B A
C D
C BDA

D C

AB
C D
(C A) (D B)

Proof. We work out the proofs of only a couple of rules, leaving the rest as an exercise.
(LR)
A B
C D

(L)

(L)
(AC) B
(AC) D
(R)
(AC) (BD)
(LR)
C D
AB
(R)
C  A (B D)
(L)
(A C) (B D)
(LR)
C D
AB
B A
D C
(L)
(L)
C BAD
D  C B A
(R)
C BDA


We define a binary relation on the set F of all formulas of CyInDFL as follows:
A B A B and B A and B A and A B.
By (Id), (CUT ) and the rules from Lemma 2, it follows that is a congruence with respect to all
connectives. We construct the quotient algebra LF on the set F/ , setting: |A| |B| = |AB| ,
|A| |B| = |AB| , |A| |B| = |A B| , |A| |B| = |A B| , |A| = |A| and 1 =
|1| . We should now verify that LF is an cyclic involutive distributive FL-algebra. In this
verification, the following lemma will be useful.
Lemma 3
|A| |B| A B and B A.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 237

231252

238 CyInDFL is Decidable

Proof. According to the above definitions we have: |A| |B| if and only if |AB| = |B| ,
which is equivalent to AB B and B (AB), since B AB and (AB) B are
provable in CyInDFL.
Let us assume AB B and B (AB). We obtain A B and B A by the
provability of A AB and (AB) A, and (CUT ).
Conversely, if we assume A B and B A, we will obtain AB B and B
(AB) by (Id), and the rules (L) and (R).


We verify only four axioms of cyclic involutive distributive FL-algebras, leaving the remaining
axioms to the reader.
|A| |B| |C| |B| |C| |A|
We present proofs of the right implication of the Galois residuation law; proofs of the opposite
implication are analogous.
C C
BB
(R)
(B C) A
C  B (B C)
(CUT )
hh
h
hh
hh
C  B A
hh
hh
hh
hh
hh
C C
BB
hh
h
(L)
@
BBC C
ABC
@
(CUT )
@
R
@
BAC
(R)
BC A
B B
C C
(L)
B C  C B
ABC
(CUT )
A  C B
(L)
(C A) B
|A| |B| |A| |B|
We present proofs of the right inequality of the contraposition law; proofs of the opposite
inequality are analogous.
BB
AA
(R)
(L)
A A
B B
B B
A A
(L)
(L)
A B  B A
A  A B B
(R)
A B A B
BB
AA
(R)
(L)
B B
A A
(R)
B  A (A B)
(L)
(A B) (A B)
(|A| |B| ) |C| |A| (|B| |C| )
We present proofs of the right inequality of the associativity law; proofs of the opposite inequality
are analogous.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 238

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 239

A A
B B
(L)
A B  B A
C C
(L)
((A B) C  C)  B A
( A)
(A B) C  (C  B) A
(L)
(A B) C  (B C) A
hh
h
hh
hh
hh
hh
hh
hh
hh
h C
C
B B
AA
(R)
C
C C
B  A (A B)
C
(L)
C
(B  A)  (A B) C C
( A)
C
B  (A  (A B) C) C
C
h
hh
hh
hh
hh
C
hh
hh
h
hh
BB
AA
h
h@
C
(L)
@
C
AABB
C C
C
(L) @
@
C
A  ((A B) C  C) B
( A)
@
C
R
@
(A  (A B) C)  C B
C
(R)
CW
A  (A B) C B C
(R)
(A B) C A (B C)
B B
AA
(R)
C C
B  A (A B)
(R)
C  (B  A) ((A B) C)
( A)
(C  B)  A ((A B) C)
(L)
(B C)  A ((A B) C)
(L)
(A (B C)) ((A B) C)
|1| |A| = |A|
We present proofs of the first equality of the residuation unit law; proofs of the second equality
are analogous.
1
AA
(L)
1AA
(C)
1AA
AA
AA
(W ) ([])
AA
A  A
(1L) (1R)
1AA
A  A 1
(R)
A1A

A A
1
(R)
A  (1 A)
(C)
A (1 A)
A A
(W )
A  A
(1L)
A  1 A
(L)
(1 A) A

We can now prove the main theorem of this section.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 239

231252

240 CyInDFL is Decidable

Theorem 4
For any formulas A, B, if |= A B, then A B.
Proof. Just as for LindenbaumTarski algebras, we define an assignment f : F LF by f (A) =
|A| . Let us now assume on the contrary that
A B. Then by Lemma 3, |A|  |B| . So, f (A) 
f (B), i.e. A B is not true in the model LF ,f .

Cut elimination

To achieve a syntactic proof of cut admissibility, it is expedient to prove a more general form of the
cut rule, called the mix rule [1, 6, 7, 12, 17]. In our system, the mix rule has to have the following
triple form:

(MIX)

(1)

X[A]...[A] B
Y A
X[Y ]...[Y ] B

for any B,

(2)

X[A]...[A] B
Y A
X[Y ]...[Y ]  Y

if B = A or B = A,

(3)

X[A]...[A] B
Y A
Y  X[Y ]...[Y ]

if B = A or B = A.

We will prove the admissibility of all three forms of the (MIX) rule simultaneously by triple
induction: (I) on the complexities of A and A (mutual), (II) on the length of proof of X[A]...[A] B
and (III) on the length of proof of Y A. Clearly, from (MIX) (1) for one A we get the admissibility
of the (CUT ) rule.
A = p.
In the case when X[p]...[p] B is the axiom (Id), the conclusion of (MIX) (1) coincides with
the premise Y p. In most cases when X[p]...[p] B is the conclusion of some rule, the
conclusions of (MIX) (1)(3) follow from the corresponding induction hypotheses of (II) for
(MIX) (1)(3), and this rule. Only in the cases when X[p]...[p] B is the conclusion of ([]),
and the introduced A on the left side of the consecution is one from the designated p from X,
the conclusion of (MIX) (1) follows straightforwardly from the induction hypothesis of (II) for
(MIX) (2) or (3).
A = p.
The proof does not stray much from the case above. Main differences occur in the cases when
X[p]...[p] B is the conclusion of ([]) or (R). In the former case, we should also
consider the cases when the introduced A on the left side of the consecution is one from the
designated p from X. In the latter, we should consider (MIX) (2)(3) as well. In both these
cases, the conclusions of (MIX) (1) (for the former) and (MIX) (2)(3) (for the latter) follow
straightforwardly from the corresponding induction hypotheses of (II) for (MIX) (2) and (3).
A = 1.
The proof differs from the case A = p only if X[1]...[1] B is the conclusion of (1L) or (1R).
In the case when the rule (1L) introduces one from the designated 1, we must switch on induction
(III). The most special case of this induction is when Y 1 is an instance of the axiom (1R). The
conclusions of (MIX) (1)(3) follow then straightforwardly from the corresponding induction

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 240

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 241

hypotheses of (II) for (MIX) (1)(3). In the case of the rule (1R), we must switch on induction
(III) to prove the admissibility of (MIX) (2)(3). Again, the most special case is when Y 1 is
an instance of the axiom (1R). Both conclusions of (MIX) (2)(3) follow then from the induction
hypothesis of (II) for (MIX) (1) and the rule (W ).
A = 1.
The proof differs from the case A = p only if X[1]...[1] B is an instance of the axiom
(1R) or (1L). In both these cases we must switch on induction (III). In the case of the axiom
(1R), the most special case is when Y 1 is the conclusion of (1R). The conclusions of
(MIX) (2)(3) follow then from the premise Y by the rule (W ). In the case of the axiom
(1L), the most special case is also when Y 1 is the conclusion of (1R). The conclusion
of (MIX) (1) coincides with the premise Y .
A = C D.
The proof differs from the case A = p only if X[C D]...[C D] B is the conclusion of (L)
or (R). Analogously to the case A = 1, two inductions (III) are required: when the rule (L)
introduces one from the designated C D and in order to show the admissibility of (MIX) (2)(3)
in the case of (R). In both these inductions, the most special cases are when Y C D is
the conclusion of (R). In the former induction (III), in this distinguished case, the conclusions
of (MIX) (1)(3) follow from the corresponding induction hypotheses of (II) for (MIX) (1)(3),
the induction hypotheses of (I) for (MIX) (1), for C and D and the rule (? C). In the latter, in
this distinguished case, the conclusions of (MIX) (2)(3) follow from the induction hypothesis
of (II) for (MIX) (1) and the corresponding induction hypotheses of (I) for (MIX) (2)(3), for
C or D, depending on the version of the rule (R).
A = (C D).
The proof differs from the case A = p only if X[(C D)]...[(C D)] B is the conclusion
of (L) or (R). Analogously to the case A = 1, two inductions (III) are required: when the
rule (L) introduces one from the designated (C D) and in order to show the admissibility
of (MIX) (2)(3) in the case of (R). In both these inductions, the most special cases are when
Y (C D) is the conclusion of (R). In the former induction (III), in this distinguished
case, the conclusions of (MIX) (1)(3) follow from the corresponding induction hypotheses of
(II) for (MIX) (1)(3) and the induction hypothesis of (I) for (MIX) (1), for C or D, depending
on the version of the rule (R). In the latter, in this distinguished case, the conclusions of
(MIX) (2)(3) follow from the induction hypothesis of (II) for (MIX) (1) and the corresponding
induction hypotheses of (I) for (MIX) (2)(3), for C or D, again depending on the version of the
rule (R).
A = C D.
The proof is quite analogous to the case A = C D. Two similar inductions (III) are required when
the rule (L) introduces one from the designated C D and in order to show the admissibility
of (MIX) (2)(3) in the case of (R).
A = (C D).
The proof is quite analogous to the case A = (C D). Two similar inductions (III) are required
when the rule (L) introduces one from the designated (C D) and in order to show the
admissibility of (MIX) (2)(3) in the case of (R).
A = C D.
The proof is analogous to the case A = C D, as regards the need of two inductions (III). However,
procedures for the most special cases of these inductions are slightly different. In the case
when X[C D]...[C D] B is the conclusion of (L) and Y C D is the conclusion of
(R) , the conclusions of (MIX) (1)(3) follow from the corresponding induction hypotheses

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 241

231252

242 CyInDFL is Decidable

of (II) for (MIX) (1)(3) applied to the left premise of (L), the induction hypothesis of (II)
for (MIX) (1) applied to the right premise of (L) and the induction hypotheses of (I) for
(MIX) (1), for D and C, or C and D, depending on the version of the rule (L). In the case
when X[C D]...[C D] (C D) is the conclusion of (R) and Y C D is the
conclusion of (R) , the conclusion of (MIX) (2) follows from the induction hypothesis of (II)
for (MIX) (1) applied to the both premises of (R) and the induction hypotheses of (I), first
for (MIX) (2) and D, and next for (MIX) (1) and C, whereas in order to get the conclusion of
(MIX) (3) we should rather apply the induction hypotheses of (I) for (MIX) (3) and C, and for
(MIX) (1) and D.
A = (C D).
The proof is analogous to the case A = (C D), however induction (III) in the case when
X[(C D)]...[(C D)] C D is the conclusion of (R) and Y (C D) is the
conclusion of (R) is slightly different. The conclusion of (MIX) (2), in this distinguished
case, follows from the induction hypothesis of (II) for (MIX) (1) applied to the right premise of
(R) and the induction hypotheses of (I), first for (MIX) (1) and D, and next for (MIX) (2)
and C. Whereas the conclusion of (MIX) (3) follows from the induction hypothesis of (II) for
(MIX) (1) applied to the left premise of (R) and the induction hypotheses of (I), for (MIX)
(1) and C, and for (MIX) (3) and D.
A = C D.
The proof is quite similar to the case A = C D.
A = (C D).
The proof is quite similar to the case A = (C D).
A = C.
This case follows straightforwardly from the mutual induction (I) on A.
A = C.
The proof differs from the case A = (C D) only in the cases when X[C]...[C] B is
the conclusion of the rules introducing negations on the right side of consecution. For all these
rules we need induction (III) if introduced formula E = B in the consequent is identical with
C. In all these inductions, the most special cases are when Y C is the conclusion of
(R). The conclusions of (MIX) (2)(3) follow then from the induction hypothesis of (II) for
(MIX) (1), the corresponding rule that introduced B and the corresponding induction hypotheses
of (I) for (MIX) (2)(3), for C.

Simplification

On first sight, the rules (R) and (R) are a little bit strange. It seems that premises are redundant.
Indeed they are, as we will show using the completeness theorem. So, let us replace these two rules
with the corresponding simpler rules (R) and (R) from FL:

(R)

AX B
X AB

(R)

X AB
X BA

We will denote the provability relation of this new system CyInDFL by . The following theorem
justifies naming this new system as the old one.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 242

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 243

Theorem 5
For any structure X, and any formula A there holds:
X A

X A.

Proof. Let X A. From the Section 6, we have that there exists a cut-free proof of X A. We
remove from this proof all branches leading down to consecutions which are the right premise of any
instance of (R) or (R) . We then get a (simpler) proof of X A in the new system CyInDFL.
Let X A. Clearly X A is valid in CyInDFL, since the rules (R) and (R) also preserve
the validity. Therefore X A follows directly from Section 4.

Decidability

For FL and its all basic variants, except these with contraction, it is enough to prove the cut elimination
theorem to get the decidability [15, 21, 25]. The property of the finite proof-search tree of this calculus
follows immediately from the subformula property of all remaining rules: any premise contains only
subformulas of formulas appearing in the conclusion. The contraction rule requires a special treatment
showing that any proof-search needs only to consider a bounded number of applications of this
rule. In the presence of exchange, it is possible by Kripkes Lemma [2, 13, 20, 22, 27]. In the case of
two structure constructors and contraction (with weakening) for only one of these constructors, such
restriction can be obtained by the method of Giambrone [2, 13, 17, 27].6 We adapt this method in a
manner similar to how Restall adapted it [26].
First, let us notice that all rules of the system CyInDFL have the following form of subformula
property: any premise contains only and subformulas and negations of subformulas of formulas
appearing in the conclusion. Second, for all these rules the following complexity measure of
consecutions decreases from the conclusion to any of the premise, or stay the same:
m(A) = the total number of occurrences of variables, constants and connectives in A
m() = 0,
m( ) = 1 (for the empty succedent)
m(X  Y ) = m(X)+m(Y ),
m(X ? Y ) = max{m(X),m(Y )},
m(X A) = m(X)+m(A).
Thus, indeed, it suffices to show that any proof-search needs only to consider a bounded number
of applications of (? C) and (C). In order to show this, let us first notice that for all structures X, Y ,
Z, V and any formula A the following equivalence holds:
X[(Y ? Z) ? V ] A

X[Y ? (Z ? V )] A.

(&)

This equivalence allows us to consider all structures that can be transformed into each other by
means of the following two transformations
X[(Y ? Z) ? V ]
X[Y ? (Z ? V )]
6 The

X[Y ? (Z ? V )]
X[(Y ? Z) ? V ]

associativity of this constructor is also crucial, as well as the associativity of comma in the case of FLec .

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 243

231252

244 CyInDFL is Decidable

as inferentially equivalent. As a consequence, we assume the convention of omitting brackets
which separate constituents of such structures. Therefore, the rule (? A) is not needed anymore, so
we drop it from the system CyInDFL.7 We can now define the needed notions.
In any structure X, the substructures Y and V are said to be near if they occur in a substructure of
the form Y ? Z1 ? Z2 ? ... ? Zk ? V or V ? Z1 ? Z2 ? ... ? Zk ? Y , for some structures Z1 ,Z2 ,...,Zk .8
In any structure X, is said to be superfluous if occurs in a substructure of the form  Y or
Y  , for some structure Y .
A structure X is said to be reduced if X does not contain any superfluous and X does not contain
any identical substructures near one another.
It is easy to see that for any structure X, there exists a reduced structure X r , which is obtained from
X by the following term rewriting procedure:
for any superfluous , delete it, together with the adjacent ,
for any substructure Y near one another Y , delete one, together with the adjacent ?.
Moreover, it is easy to see that for every such obtained reduced structure X r from X, there holds:
X A

X r A.

It follows directly from the structural rules of the system CyInDFL. This fact allows one to search
for a proof of any consecution X r A instead of X A. It remains to show that this proof-search is
always finite. We need only next four lemmas.
Lemma 6
For any consecution X A, if m(X A) = n, then there exist at most finitely many reduced structures
of complexity not greater than n, built from subformulas and negations of subformulas of formulas
occurring in X A, and .
Proof. The proof is similar to the counterparts from [17, 19, 26] it goes by induction on n. The
base step is trivial, since there is only one reduced structure of complexity 0.
Let us assume by the inductive hypothesis that the thesis holds for all m < n. Then, it suffices to
show that there exist at most finitely many reduced structures of complexity equal to n, built from
subformulas and negations of subformulas of formulas occurring in X A, and . But any such
reduced structure is one of three forms:
A formula.
Clearly, there are only finitely many formulas of complexity n, built from subformulas and
negations of subformulas of formulas occurring in X A.
A structure of the form: Y1  Y2 .
From the definition of m, Y1 and Y2 are structures of complexity less than n (none of them can be
, lest Y1  Y2 is not reduced). So, by the induction hypothesis, there are at most finitely many
reduced structures which might serve as left and right constituents. So, we can build from these
reduced structures at most finitely many reduced structures of this form of complexity n.
A structure of the form: Y1 ? Y2 ? ... ? Yk .
7 Clearly, these two approaches of the system CyInDFL, with explicit (? A) and with (? A) in the metatheory, are decidably
equivalent.
8 For k = 0 these structures are near in the literal meaning of this word; for k 1 they are near in the literal meaning, in at
least one of inferentially equivalent structure X taking into account the rule (? E) this time.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 244

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 245

According to the assumed convention followed from (&), each of these constituents Y1 , Y2 , ...,
Yk must be either a formula, or , or of the form (V  W ) for some V and W , and must have
complexity less than or equal to n (by the definition of m). So by the induction hypothesis and
two reasonings in the above, there are at most finitely many reduced structures which might serve
as such constituents. So, by the constraint saying that none of two identical substructures can
be near one another, we can build from these reduced structures at most finitely many reduced
structures of this form of complexity n.


Like in [17, 26], we need the notion of semi-reduced structures and we can show the analogous
lemma for structures of this kind.
A structure X is said to be semi-reduced if either X is reduced, or X has at most one superfluous ,
or X has at most two identical substructures near one another.
Lemma 7
For any consecution X A, if m(X A) = n, then there exist at most finitely many semi-reduced
structures of complexity not greater than n, built from subformulas and negations of subformulas of
formulas occurring in X A, and .
Proof. By analogous induction on n.

As a corollary, we have that there exist at most finitely many consecutions with a semi-reduced
antecedent (semi-reduced consecutions for short), of complexity not greater than n, built from
subformulas and negations of subformulas of formulas occurring in X A, and . Finally, we can
show that proof-search within this finite set of consecutions is sufficient, where from we obtain the
decidability of CyInDFL.
However, we first need to prove some technical lemma about semi-reduced consecutions and
semireduced proofs (proofs which consist only of semi-reduced consecutions).
Lemma 8
Let X1s , X2s be any semi-reduced structures of X and let A be any formula. Then, there exists a
semi-reduced proof of X2s A, which employs only structural rules and X1s A as the only initial
consecution (shortly: a semi-reduced structural proof of X2s A from X1s A).
Proof. We prove this lemma by induction on the build-up of the structure X. The base steps are
trivial, since for any atomic structure X ( or a formula), the only semi-reduced structure of X is X.
The inductive steps are much more complicated; especially the second one.
X = Y 1  Y2 .
By the inductive hypothesis we have that the thesis holds for Y1 and Y2 . We can divide all
semi-reduced structures of X for the following two groups:
Group I.
The group consisting of all structures of the forms Y1s  Y2r and Y1r  Y2s , where Yis is any
semi-reduced structure of Yi and Yir is any reduced structure of Yi , for i = 1,2.
Group II.
The group consisting of all structures of the forms Y1s and Y2s , where Yis is any semi-reduced
structure of Yi , for i = 1,2. This is the case when the reduced structure of the second constituent
is , and this is deleted by the procedure as superfluous.
We should consider four cases, depending on the groups which the structures X1s and X2s belong to.
We work out only the proof of the case when X1s and X2s belong to the Group I, since all others
are very similar (it can even be said that they are particular cases of this one).

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 245

231252

246 CyInDFL is Decidable

Let X1s = Y11  Y21 and X2s = Y12  Y22 . We restrict our attention to the case when Y11 and Y12
are reduced. The remaining cases are analogous.
First, what we want to have is a semi-reduced structural proof of Y11  Y2r1 A from Y11 
Y21 A, where Y2r1 is some reduced structure of Y21 , unless Y21 is already reduced. From the
induction hypothesis for Y2 , we know that there exists a semi-reduced structural proof of Y2r1 A
from Y21 A. So, we repeat the same structural rules which are used in this proof and we obtain
the semi-reduced structural proof of Y11  Y2r1 A from Y11  Y21 A.
Next, we want to have a semi-reduced structural proof of Y12  Y2r1 A from Y11  Y2r1 A.
From the induction hypothesis for Y1 , we know that there exists a semi-reduced structural proof
of Y12 A from Y11 A. So, again we repeat the same structural rules which are used in this
proof, and we obtain the semireduced structural proof of Y12  Y2r1 A from Y11  Y2r1 A. In
this case we must be careful when Y2r1 is . If Y2r1 = , then we should apply (C) at the beginning
and (W ) at the end of this semi-reduced structural proof of Y12  A from Y11  A.
Lastly, what we want to have is a semi-reduced structural proof of Y12  Y22 A from
Y12  Y2r1 A. Again, we use the induction hypothesis for Y2 , and by repeating the structural
rules from a semi-reduced structural proof of Y22 A from Y2r1 A, we obtain the semi-reduced
structural proof of Y12  Y22 A from Y12  Y2r1 A, as desired. This time we must be careful
when Y12 is . Analogously, the rules (C) and (W ) are essential in this case.
X = Y1 ? Y2 ? ... ? Yk .
By the inductive hypothesis, we have that the thesis holds for Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yk . We can divide all
semi-reduced structures of X for the following similar two groups.
Group I.
The group consisting of all structures of the following forms:
Y1s ? Y2r ? ... ? Ykr ,
Y1r ? Y2s ? ... ? Ykr ,
..
.,

Y1r ? Y2r ? ... ? Yks ,

where Yis is any semi-reduced structure of Yi and Yir is any reduced structure of Yi , for
i = 1,2,...,k.
Group II.
The group consisting of all structures of the following forms:
Yms 1 ? Ymr 2 ? ... ? Ymr l ,
Ymr 1 ? Yms 2 ? ... ? Ymr l ,
..
.,
Ymr 1 ? Ymr 2 ? ... ? Yms l ,
where m1 ,m2 ,...,ml {1,2,...,k} and mi  = mj for i = j and Yms i is any semi-reduced structure
of Ymi and Ymr i is any reduced structure of Ymi (i,j = 1,2,...,l). This is the case when some
reduced or semi-reduced structures of the constituents Y1 ,Y2 ,...,Yk are identical, and they are
deleted by the procedure.
We should consider four cases, depending on the groups which the structures X1s and X2s belong to.
Similarly, we work out only the proof of the case when X1s and X2s belong to the Group I, since
all others are very similar (also it can be said that they are particular cases of this one).

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 246

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 247

Let X1s = Y11 ? Y21 ? ... ? Yk1 and X2s = Y12 ? Y22 ? ... ? Yk2 . We restrict our attention to the
case when Y11 ,Y21 ,...,Yk11 and Y12 ,Y22 ,...,Yk12 are reduced. We also assume that Yi1  = Yj1
and Yi2  = Yj2 for i  = j (i,j = 1,2,...,k 1). The remaining cases are analogous.
First, what we want to have is a semi-reduced structural proof of Y11 ? Y21 ? ... ? Ykr1
A from Y11 ? Y21 ? ... ? Yk1 A, where Ykr1 is some reduced structure of Yk1 , unless Yk1 is
already reduced. From the induction hypothesis for Yk , we know that there exists a semi-reduced
structural proof of Ykr1 A from Yk1 A. So, we repeat the same structural rules which are used
in this proof, and we obtain the semi-reduced structural proof of Y11 ? Y21 ? ... ? Ykr1 A from
Y11 ? Y21 ? ... ? Yk1 A. We expect Y11 ? Y21 ? ... ? Ykr1 A to be a reduced consecution. If
not (since Ykr1 is identical to some of Y11 ,Y21 ,...,Yk11 ), we can use (? C) (together with
(? E), if necessary) to eliminate this identical structure and obtain the reduced consecution
Ym11 ? Ym21 ? ... ? Yml 1 ? Ykr1 A, where m1 ,m2 ,...,ml {1,2,...,k 1} and mi  = mj for i  = j.
Using the induction hypotheses for Yml ,...,Ym2 ,Ym1 and reasoning as above (including the
elimination of the identical structure after every usage of the induction hypothesis), we obtain
a semi-reduced structural proof of Yn12 ? Yn22 ? ... ? Ynh2 ? Ykr1 A from Ym11 ? Ym21 ? ... ?
Yml 1 ? Ykr1 A, where n1 ,n2 ,...,nh {m1 ,m2 ,...,ml } and ni  = nj for i  = j.
Next, we can return to the constituent Ykr1 . We obtain a semi-reduced structural proof of Yn12 ?
Yn22 ? ... ? Ynh2 ? Yk2 A from Yn12 ? Yn22 ? ... ? Ynh2 ? Ykr1 A, by the induction hypothesis
for Yk and the same procedure.
Finally, we can obtain a semi-reduced structural proof of Y12 ? Y22 ? ... ? Yk12 ? Yk2 A
from Yn12 ? Yn22 ? ... ? Ynh2 ? Yk2 A, by applying the rule (? W ) as many times as necessary
(possibly zero times), in order to add the missing reduced structures.


With the help of this lemma, we can prove the main lemma of this section.
Lemma 9
Any provable reduced consecution has a semi-reduced proof.
Proof. Like in [26], we take a proof and apply the reduction procedure to the antecedent of every
node of this proof. The result is almost a proof. Clearly all its leaves are axioms. All we need to do in
order to obtain any semi-reduced proof is to add some semi-reduced consecutions between obtained
premises and conclusions. The procedure uses Lemma 8 in an essential way, and it is analogous for
every rule. So, we present only one case, the rest being treated in a similar manner (with three small
exceptions).
X[(AB)] C is obtained from X[A] C and X[B] C by applying (L).
Let X r [(AB)] C, X r [A] C and X r [B] C be results of applying the reduction procedure on X[(AB)] C, X[A] C and X[B] C, respectively. Obtained consecutions
may not match the schema of the rule (L), for two reasons. First, the reduction procedure
could delete some of the designated formulas (AB), A, B or some superstructures of them.
Second, since the reduction procedure is ambiguous, it could delete corresponding substructures
in X[(AB)], X[A] and X[B] in a completely different way.
Therefore, let us impose certain restrictions on the reduction procedure, so that the rule (L)
could be applied to:
treat the designated formula as unique in the entire structure,
treat the substructures from the antecedents of the premises in the same way as the
corresponding substructures from the antecedent of the conclusion.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 247

231252

248 CyInDFL is Decidable

Example
Let the input instance of the rule (L) be as follows:
((A ? B ? D ? A)  E) ? ((A ? (AB) ? D ? A)  E) C
@
((A ? A ? D ? A)  E) ? ((A ? (AB) ? D ? A)  E) C
R
@
((A ? (AB) ? D ? A)  E) ? ((A ? (AB) ? D ? A)  E) C
In order to treat the designated formulas as unique, we mark them with the sign  . So we get
the scheme as follows:
((A ? (B) ? D ? A)  E) ? ((A ? (AB) ? D ? A)  E) C
@
((A ? (A) ? D ? A)  E) ? ((A ? (AB) ? D ? A)  E) C
R
@

((A ? ((AB)) ? D ? A)  E) ? ((A ? (AB) ? D ? A)  E) C
After applying the reduction procedure to the antecedent of the conclusion (and removing
sign  ), we get:
(((AB) ? D ? A)  E) ? (((AB) ? D ? A)  E) C.
Treating in the same way substructures from the antecedents of the premises, we finally get:
for the left premise: ((A ? D ? A)  E) ? (((AB) ? D ? A)  E) C,
for the right premise: ((B ? D ? A)  E) ? (((AB) ? D ? A)  E) C.
Let X s [(AB)] C, X s [A] C and X s [B] C be results of applying the reduction
procedure with the above restrictions.
It is easy to see that such restrictions give not only consecutions matching the scheme of the
rule (L) but also consecutions which are semi-reduced. So, in order to finish this case, we
only need to use Lemma 8 and add some semi-reduced structural proofs of X s [A] C from
X r [A] C, X s [B] C from X r [B] C and X r [(AB)] C from X s [(AB)] C
between the premises X r [A] C, X r [B] C and the conclusion X r [(AB)] C.
Exceptions.
For the structural rules (? W ) and (? E), the first restriction (treating the designated structures
as unique in the entire structure) can lead to structures which are not semi-reduced in cases
when both designated structures Y and Z are near other instances of Y and Z. In such cases, it
is very important to delete all these identical instances from the antecedents of the premise and
the conclusion, first. The same applies to the rule (? C), if there are other instances of Y near
the designated structures Y .
Similar situation occurs for the rule (L), when both designated A and B are near other
instances of A and B. We should delete all these identical instances of A and B from the antecedent
of the premise in order to get a semi-reduced structure after applying the reduction procedure. We
should also delete all corresponding instances of A and B from the antecedent of the conclusion
in order to get a consecution matching the conclusion of the rule (L). This deletion of A and
B from the antecedent of the conclusion causes that the obtained consecution after applying the
reduction procedure is not a semi-reduced consecution of X[AB] C. Fortunately, we can
restore the missing A and B by the rule (? W ).

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 248

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 249

Example 2
Let the input instance of the rule (L) be as follows:
((B ? A ? D ? AB)  E) ? ((B ? A ? D ? A ? B)  E) ? ((D ? A ? B)  E) C
((B ? A ? D ? AB)  E) ? ((B ? A ? D ? AB)  E) ? ((D ? A ? B)  E) C
After the deletion of all instances of A and B which are near the designated A ? B in the
antecedent of the premise, and all corresponding instances of A and B in the antecedent of the
conclusion, we get:
((B ? A ? D ? AB)  E) ? ((D ? A ? B)  E) ? ((D ? A ? B)  E) C
((B ? A ? D ? AB)  E) ? ((D ? AB)  E) ? ((D ? A ? B)  E) C
The reduction procedure with the restrictions changes nothing in this case. Finally, by restoring
the missing A and B, we get the following semi-reduced form of the conclusion:
((B ? A ? D ? AB)  E) ? ((B ? A ? D ? AB)  E) ? ((D ? A ? B)  E) C
The last exception is very simple: do not delete the designated in the premise of the rule (1L).


As a corollary we get the following result.
Theorem 10
CyInDFL is decidable.

8 Variants
The method of this article can be extended to several variants of CyInDFL and, by analogy, can be
also applied to the corresponding variants of DFL (these which have the finite model property [19]).
The first example is CyInDFL which is complete with respect to the class of Bounded CyInDFL,
i.e. the class that satisfies identities: x and x , for all elements x. Since  = , CyInDFL
can be defined as CyInDFL with one constant and two new axioms:
(L)

X[] A,

(R)

X .

It is not difficult to extend the cut elimination theorem with these two axioms as well as the decision
procedure.
It is also not difficult to extend them if we add exchange to CyInDFL or CyInDFL :
( E)

X[Y  Z] A
.
X[Z  Y ] A

It is also possible to add (independently to the previous extensions) weakening ( W ) to CyInDFL.

But, in order to get the system complete with respect to the class of Integral CyInDRL, i.e. the class

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 249

231252

250 CyInDFL is Decidable

in which 1 is the upper bound, we must add right weakening ( O) as well:

( W )

X[] A
,
X[Y ] A

( O)

X
.
X A

In any of above systems it is also possible to omit the rule ( A). This rule is not significant in
the proof of the decidability of CyInDFL, so the non-associative variants of CyInDFL are also
decidable.
As we mention at the beginning, by omitting the connective we get the system DFL. Clearly,
the decidability of corresponding variants of DFL can be obtained in an analogous way.
In the end, let us notice that we can also omit the constructor ? from CyInDFL and replace the
rule (L) with the two corresponding rules from FL:
X[A] C
X[AB] C

X[B] C
X[AB] C

Then we get the decidable system CyInFL with intuitionistic sequents.9

Acknowledgments
This research was supported with funds granted for research projects by the Polish Ministry of Science
and Higher Education in the year 2009. Thanks are also due to Professors Wojciech Buszkowski and

Kazimierz Swirydowicz
for their valuable comments helping me to improve this article.

References
[1] A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol. I.
Princeton University Press, 1975.
[2] A. R. Anderson, N. D. Belnap, and J. M. Dunn. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and
Necessity, vol. II. Princeton University Press, 1992.
[3] F. Belardinelli, P. Jipsen, and H. Ono. Algebraic aspects of cut elimination. Studia Logica, 77,
209240, 2004.
[4] N. D. Belnap. Display logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 375417, 1982.
[5] W. J. Blok and D. Pigozzi.Algebraizable logics. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society,
77, 1989.
[6] R. T. Brady. Gentzenization and decidability of some contraction-less relevant logics. Journal
of Philosophical Logic, 20, 97117, 1991.
[7] R. T. Brady. The Gentzenization and decidability of RW. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 19,
3573, 1990.
9 The Gentzen-style calculi complete with respect to CyInFL developed by Yetter [30] and Wille [29] are one-sided sequent
systems. They have also counterparts built from two-sided classical sequents, similar to the cyclic variant of the system
InFL introduced by Galatos and Jipsen [14].

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 250

231252

CyInDFL is Decidable 251

[8] R. A. Bull. Survey of generalizations of Urquhart semantics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic, 28, 220237, 1987.
[9] W. Buszkowski. Interpolation and FEP for logics of residuated algebras. Logic Journal of the
IGPL, Forthcoming.
[10] W. Buszkowski and M. Farulewski. Nonassociative Lambek calculus with additives and contextfree languages. In Languages: From Formal to Natural, Vol. 5533 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, O. Grumberg, M. Kaminski, S. Katz, and S. Wintner, eds, pp. 4558. Springer, 2009.
[11] J. M. Dunn. The Algebra of Intensional Logics. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh,
1966.
[12] J. M. Dunn. A Gentzen system for positive relevant implication. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 38,
356357, 1973.
[13] J. M. Dunn and G. Restall. Relevance logic. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 6, 2nd edn.,
D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds, pp. 1128. Springer, 2002.
[14] N. Galatos and P. Jipsen. Residuated frames with applications to decidability. Transactions of
the American Mathematical Society, Forthcoming.
[15] N. Galatos, P. Jipsen, T. Kowalski, and H. Ono. Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse
at Substructural Logics, Vol. 151 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics.
Elsevier, 2007.
[16] N. Galatos and J. G. Raftery. Adding involution to residuated structures. Studia Logica, 77,
181207, 2004.
[17] S. Giambrone. TW+ and RW+ are decidable. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 14, 235254,
1985.
[18] P. Jipsen and C. Tsinakis. A survey of residuated lattices. In Ordered Algebraic Structures,
J. Martinez, ed., pp. 1956. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
[19] M. Kozak. Distributive full Lambek calculus has the finite model property. Studia Logica, 91,
201216, 2009.
[20] S. A. Kripke. The problem of entailment. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24, 324, 1959.
[21] J. Lambek. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65,
154170, 1958.
[22] R. K. Meyer. Topics in Modal and Many-valued Logic. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh,
1966.
[23] G. Mints. Cut elimination theorem for relevant logics. Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 6,
422428, 1976. Translated from Issledovanija po konstructivnoj mathematike i matematiceskoj
logike V, Izdatelstvo Nauka, 1972.
[24] M. Okada and K. Terui. The finite model property for various fragments of intuitionistic linear
logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 64, 790802, 1999.
[25] H. Ono. Decidability and finite model property of substructural logics. In the Tbilisi Symposium
on Logic, Language and Computation (Studies in Logic, Language and Information),
J. Ginzburg, Z. Khasidashvili, C. Vogel, J.J. Lvy, and E. Vallduv, eds, pp. 263274. CSLI
Publications, 1998.
[26] G. Restall. Displaying and deciding substructural logics 1: logics with contraposition. Journal
of Philosophical Logic, 27, 179216, 1998.
[27] G. Restall. Relevant and substructural logic. In Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth
Century, D. M. Gabbay and J. Woods, eds, Vol. 7 of Handbook of the History of Logic, pp.
289398. Elsevier, 2006.
[28] A. Urquhart. The undecidability of entailment and relevant implication. Journal of Symbolic
Logic, 49, 10591073, 1984.

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 251

231252

252 CyInDFL is Decidable

[29] A. M. Wille. A Gentzen system for involutive residuated lattices. Algebra Universalis, 54,
449463, 2005.
[30] D. N. Yetter. Quantales and (noncommutative) linear logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 55,
4164, 1990.
[31] I. D. Zaslavsky. Symmetric Constructive Logic. Publishing House of Academy of Sciences of
Armenia SSR, 1978, (in Russian).
Received June 29, 2009

[10:51 22/3/2011 exq021.tex]

LogCom: Journal of Logic and Computation

Page: 252

231252