The Identity of Proofs and the Criterion for Admissible Reductions
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Dag Prawitz (1971) put forward the idea that an admissible reduction process does not affect the identity of proofs represented by derivations in natural deduction. The idea relies on his conjecture that two derivations represent the same proof if and only if they are equivalent in the sense that they are reflexive, transitive and symmetric closure of the immediate reducibility relation. Schroeder-Heister and Tranchini (2017) accept Prawitz’s conjecture and propose the triviality test as the criterion for admissible reductions. In the present paper, we will consider two main troubles of the triviality test. The first is the obscurity of a method of evaluating admissible reductions. The second is the circularity problem that the triviality test already assumes the set of admissible reduction procedures. For the solution of the problems, we will propose the spoiler test which immunes the problems of the triviality test and has the role of the criterion for admissible reductions. At last, we shall cover a plausible problem of the spoiler test that can be caused by Crabbé’s case.
Abstract
Dag Prawitz (1971) put forward the idea that an admissible reduction process does not affect the identity of proofs represented by derivations in natural deduction. The idea relies on his conjecture that two derivations represent the same proof if and only if they are equivalent in the sense that they are reflexive, transitive and symmetric closure of the immediate reducibility relation. Schroeder-Heister and Tranchini (2017) accept Prawitz’s conjecture and propose the triviality test as the criterion for admissible reductions. In the present paper, we will consider two main troubles of the triviality test. The first is the obscurity of a method of evaluating admissible reductions. The second is the circularity problem that the triviality test already assumes the set of admissible reduction procedures. For the solution of the problems, we will propose the spoiler test which immunes the problems of the triviality test and has the role of the criterion for admissible reductions. At last, we shall cover a plausible problem of the spoiler test that can be caused by Crabbé’s case.
참고문헌 (18)
- Choi, S., "On Proof-Theoretic Approaches to the Paradoxes:Problems of Undergeneration and Overgeneration in the Prawitz-Tennant Analysis", Doctoral, pp.2019
- 최승락, "Tennant’s Conjecture for Self-Referential Paradoxes and its Classical Counterexample", 논리연구, 24(1), pp.1~30 (2021), 한국논리학회
- Dummett, M., "Logical Basis of Metaphysics" (1991), Harvard University Press
- Ekman, J., "Propositions in Propositional Logic Provable Only By Indirect Proof", Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 44(1), pp.69~91 (1998)
- Gentzen, G., "The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen", pp.68~131 (1935), North-Holland
- Girard, J., "Proof Theory and Logical Complexity" (1987), Bibliopolis
- Kreisel, G., "A Survey of Proof Theory II", Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp.109~170 (1971), North-Holland
- Negri, S., "Structural Proof Theory" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Prawitz, D., "Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study" (1965), Dover Publications
- Prawitz, D., "Ideas and Result in Proof Theory", Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp.235~308 (1971), North-Holland
- Schroeder-Heister, P., "Ekman’s paradox", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 58(4), pp.567~581 (2017)
- Schroeder-Heister, P., "How to Ekman a Crabbé-Tennant", Synthese (2018)[DOI]
- Tennant, N., "Proof and Paradox", Dialectica, 36, pp.265~296 (1982)
- Tennant, N., "On ParadoxWithout Self-Reference", Analysis, 55, pp.199~207 (1995)
- Tennant, N., "Ultimate Normal Forms for Parallelized Natural Deduction", Logic Journal of IGPL, 56(1), pp.299~337 (2002)
- Tennant, N., "Normalizability, Cut Eliminability and Paradox", Synthese (2016)[DOI]
- Tennant, N., "Core Logic" (2017), Oxford University Press
- von Plato, J., "A Sequent Calculus Isomorphic to Gentzen’s Natural Deduction", The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(1), pp.43~53 (2011)