Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-s56hc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T07:17:22.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Normalization theorems for full first order classical natural deduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Gunnar Stålmarck
Gunnar Stålmarck*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper we prove the strong normalization theorem for full first order classical N.D. (natural deduction)—full in the sense that all logical constants are taken as primitive. We also give a syntactic proof of the normal form theorem and (weak) normalization for the same system.

The theorem has been stated several times, and some proofs appear in the literature. The first proof occurs in Statman [1], where full first order classical N.D. (with the elimination rules for ∨ and ∃ restricted to atomic conclusions) is embedded in a system for second order (propositional) intuitionistic N.D., for which a strong normalization theorem is proved using strongly impredicative methods.

A proof of the normal form theorem and (weak) normalization theorem occurs in Seldin [1] as an extension of a proof of the same theorem for an N.D.-system for the intermediate logic called MH.

The proof of the strong normalization theorem presented in this paper is obtained by proving that a certain kind of validity applies to all derivations in the system considered.

The notion “validity” is adopted from Prawitz [2], where it is used to prove the strong normalization theorem for a restricted version of first order classical N.D., and is extended to cover the full system. Notions similar to “validity” have been used earlier by Tait (convertability), Girard (réducibilité) and Martin-Löf (computability).

In Prawitz [2] the N.D. system is restricted in the sense that ∨ and ∃ are not treated as primitive logical constants, and hence the deductions can only be seen to be “natural” with respect to the other logical constants. To spell it out, the strong normalization theorem for the restricted version of first order classical N.D. together with the well-known results on the definability of the rules for ∨ and ∃ in the restricted system does not imply the normalization theorem for the full system.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 129 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Leivant, D. [1], Assumption classes in natural deduction, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 25 (1979), pp. 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prawitz, D. [1], Natural deduction, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
Prawitz, D.[2], Ideas and results in proof theory, Proceedings of the second Scandinavian logic symposium, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971, pp. 235–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prawitz, D.[3], Validity and normalizability of proofs in first and second order classical and intuitionistic logic, Atti del Congresso Nazionale di Logica (Montecatini, 1979), pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Seldin, J. P. [1], On the proof theory of the intermediate logic MH, this Journal, vol. 52 (1986), pp. 626–647.Google Scholar
Statman, R. [1], Structural complexity of proofs, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1974.Google Scholar