Twist Sequent Calculi for S4 and its Neighbors

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2501.00483
• Title: Twist Sequent Calculi for S4 and its Neighbors
• Author: Norihiro Kamide (School of Data Science, Nagoya City University, Aichi, Japan)
• Classification: cs.LO (Logic in Computer Science)
• Conference: Non-Classical Logics: Theory and Applications (NCL'24), EPTCS 415, 2024
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00483

Abstract

This paper proposes and investigates two Gentzen-style twist sequent calculi for the normal modal logic S4. The proposed calculus systems do not employ standard logical inference rules for negation connectives; instead, they adopt twist logical inference rules specifically designed for negated logical connectives. Using these calculus systems, one can generate concise proofs for provable negated modal formulas containing a large number of negation connectives. The paper establishes cut-elimination theorems for these calculi and obtains the subformula property. Furthermore, Gentzen-style twist (hyper)sequent calculi for other normal modal logics (including S5) are also considered.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem addressed in this research is: how to provide an effective and concise proof system for modal formulas containing a large number of negation connectives. Traditional Gentzen-style sequent calculi produce lengthy proofs when handling modal formulas with multiple negations.

Research Significance

1. Philosophical Logic Significance: Reasoning about negative information or knowledge, particularly involving negation and modality, is important in philosophical logic, such as in the analysis of the Fitch paradox.
2. Computer Science Applications: In logic programming and knowledge representation, reasoning involving modality and negation is crucial.
3. Proof Efficiency: In real-world scenarios, negative information is typically represented by provable negated modal formulas containing modal operators and multiple negation connectives, requiring concise proofs as evidence.

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Ohnishi-Matsumoto System: Although cut-free and analytic, it is inefficient when proving negated modal formulas containing numerous negation connectives.
2. Kripke's GS4 System: Similarly suffers from lengthy proofs.
3. Other Extended Systems (NS4, DS4, SS4, GS41-GS43): While applicable to specific types of reasoning, they lack analyticity or are inefficient in handling negated modal formulas.

Core Contributions

1. Proposes Two Twist Sequent Calculi: lTS4 (local twist) and gTS4 (global twist), both cut-free and analytic.
2. Proof-Theoretic Results: Establishes cut-elimination theorems and the subformula property.
3. Efficiency Enhancement: Provides significantly shorter proofs for modal formulas containing numerous negation connectives.
4. Extension to Other Modal Logics: Constructs corresponding twist calculi for other normal modal logics such as K, KT, and S5.
5. Theoretical Equivalence: Proves theorem equivalence between lTS4, gTS4, and the standard GS4 system.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Construct Gentzen-style sequent calculus systems capable of providing concise proofs for formulas in normal modal logic S4 containing numerous negation connectives. The input is a modal formula, and the output is a proof of that formula (if provable).

Model Architecture

lTS4 (Local Twist Sequent Calculus)

Initial Sequents:

• Standard: p ⇒ p (for any propositional variable p)
• Negation: ¬p ⇒ ¬p, ¬p, p ⇒, ⇒ ¬p, p

Structural Inference Rules:

• Cut rule: (Γ ⇒ α)(α, Γ ⇒ Δ) / (Γ ⇒ Δ)
• Weakening rules: left and right weakening

Non-Twist Logical Inference Rules:

• Standard ∧, ∨, → rules
• Modal rules: (□left), (□right), (◊left), (◊right)

Twist Logical Inference Rules: The key innovation lies in twist rules, for example:

(¬□leftₜ): (Γ₁, ¬◊Γ₂ ⇒ ◊Δ₁, ¬□Δ₂, α) / (¬□α, Γ₁, ¬◊Γ₂ ⇒ ◊Δ₁, ¬□Δ₂)

gTS4 (Global Twist Sequent Calculus)

gTS4 is obtained by replacing certain rules in lTS4 with global twist rules:

(¬□leftₜ): (Γ₁, Δ₂ ⇒ ◊Δ₁, ◊Γ₂, α) / (¬□α, Γ₁, ¬◊Γ₂ ⇒ ◊Δ₁, ¬□Δ₂)

Technical Innovations

1. Twist Rule Design: Integrates standard negation rules with rules for other logical connectives, forming "shortcut" rules.
2. Local vs. Global Processing: lTS4 processes negation locally (preserving negation in non-principal contexts), while gTS4 processes globally (removing negation from all contexts).
3. Absence of Standard Negation Rules: Completely avoids using standard negation rules (¬left) and (¬right) from the Gentzen LK system.

Experimental Setup

Theoretical Verification Methods

The paper employs mathematical proof methods to verify theoretical results, primarily including:

1. Inductive Proofs: Used to prove basic properties and equivalences
2. Constructive Proofs: Demonstrate concrete proof transformations
3. Case Analysis: Compare proof lengths across different systems through specific examples

Evaluation Metrics

• Proof Length: Comparison of the number of proof steps generated by different systems
• Subformula Property: All formulas appearing in proofs are subformulas of the conclusion formula
• Cut Elimination: Cut-free nature of the system

Experimental Results

Main Results

Theorem Equivalence (Theorem 3.3)

Proves the theorem equivalence between lTS4, gTS4, and the standard GS4 system: {S | lTS4 ⊢ S} = {S | gTS4 ⊢ S} = {S | GS4 ⊢ S}

Cut-Elimination Theorem (Theorem 4.4)

For lTS4 and gTS4, the cut rule is admissible in cut-free systems.

Subformula Property (Theorem 4.5)

Both lTS4 and gTS4 possess the subformula property, ensuring the analyticity of the systems.

Case Analysis

Example 3.5: Consider the provable sequent ¬¬¬◊¬p ⇒ ¬◊¬¬□¬¬¬p

lTS4 Proof (7 steps):

¬p ⇒ ¬p
¬p, ¬◊¬p ⇒ (¬◊leftₜ)
¬¬¬p, ¬◊¬p ⇒ (¬¬leftₜ)
◊¬¬¬p, ¬◊¬p ⇒ (◊left)
¬¬□¬¬¬p, ¬◊¬p ⇒ (¬¬leftₜ)
¬◊¬p ⇒ ¬◊¬¬□¬¬¬p (¬◊rightₜ)
¬¬¬◊¬p ⇒ ¬◊¬¬□¬¬¬p (¬¬leftₜ)

gTS4 Proof (7 steps): Similar concise proof

GS4 Proof (14 steps): Lengthy proof using standard negation rules

Experimental Findings

1. Significant Efficiency Improvement: Twist calculi proofs are approximately half the length of standard systems
2. More Pronounced with More Negations: Efficiency improvements become more significant when formulas contain more negations
3. Maintained Completeness: While improving efficiency, equivalence with standard systems is preserved

Related Work

Main Research Directions

1. Classical Sequent Calculi: Ohnishi-Matsumoto (1957, 1959), Kripke (1963)
2. Extended Systems: Multi-sequent extensions by Grigoriev & Petrukhin (2019)
3. Specialized Calculi: Kamide's falsity-aware calculi (NS4, DS4, SS4) and quasi-consistent calculi (GS41-GS43)

Advantages of This Work

Compared to existing work, the proposed twist calculi simultaneously possess:

• Cut-free property
• Analyticity
• Efficient handling of negated modal formulas

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Successfully constructs two twist sequent calculi lTS4 and gTS4, addressing the proof efficiency problem for negated modal formulas
2. Establishes a complete theoretical foundation, including cut-elimination and the subformula property
3. Extends to other modal logic systems, demonstrating the generality of the method

Limitations

1. S5 System Constraints: Standard sequent calculus forms of lTS5 and gTS5 do not satisfy the cut-elimination theorem
2. Scope of Application: Primarily targets normal modal logics, not addressing non-normal modal logics
3. Implementation Complexity: Twist rule design is relatively complex, requiring careful handling of modal contexts

Future Directions

1. Logic Programming Applications: Develop a unified abstract modal logic programming framework based on twist calculi
2. Other Calculus Formats: Consider twist calculi in tree-hypersequent, 2-sequent, and bi-sequent formats
3. Non-Normal Modal Logics: Extend to non-normal modal logic systems

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation: Twist rule design is original, cleverly integrating negation handling with other logical connectives
2. Practical Value: Significantly improves proof efficiency for negated modal formulas, with important implications for logic programming and knowledge representation
3. Theoretical Completeness: Provides comprehensive theoretical analysis, including equivalence, cut-elimination, and the subformula property
4. Systematicity: Addresses not only S4 but extends to other modal logic systems

Weaknesses

1. Increased Complexity: Twist rules increase system complexity, raising the learning and application threshold
2. Limited Experimental Verification: Primarily relies on theoretical analysis and few case studies, lacking large-scale experiments
3. S5 System Issues: For S5 systems, hypersequent formats are required to ensure the cut-elimination property

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides new technical approaches for proof theory of modal logics
2. Application Prospects: Has practical value in logical reasoning systems requiring extensive negation handling
3. Reproducibility: Complete theoretical results with detailed proofs ensure good reproducibility

Applicable Scenarios

1. Logic Programming: Particularly suitable for logic programming languages involving modality and negation
2. Knowledge Representation: Has application value in AI systems requiring representation and reasoning of negative knowledge
3. Formal Verification: Can be used in formal verification tools requiring handling of modal negation properties

References

The paper cites 35 relevant references, primarily including:

• Gentzen (1969): Classical work on sequent calculi
• Kripke (1963): Semantic analysis and sequent calculi for S4
• Ohnishi & Matsumoto (1957, 1959): Early Gentzen methods for S4
• Recent related work: Grigoriev & Petrukhin (2019), Kamide (2023, 2024), etc.

This paper makes important contributions to the field of proof theory for modal logics. Through innovative twist rule design, it successfully addresses the proof efficiency problem for negated modal formulas, providing new tools and perspectives for both theoretical development and practical applications in this field.