Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:16:49.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The finite model property for knotted extensions of propositional linear logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

C. J. van Alten
C. J. van Alten*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Wits 2050, South Africa, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The logics considered here are the propositional Linear Logic and propositional Intuitionistic Linear Logic extended by a knotted structural rule: . It is proved that the class of algebraic models for such a logic has the finite embeddability property, meaning that every finite partial subalgebra of an algebra in the class can be embedded into a finite full algebra in the class. It follows that each such logic has the finite model property with respect to its algebraic semantics and hence that the logic is decidable.

Keywords

Linear Logicfinite embeddability propertyfinite model propertyclassical linear algebraintuitionistic linear algebra
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 84 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2005

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

[1]Blok, W. J. and van Alten, C. J., The finite embeddability property for residuated lattices, pocrims and BCK-algebras, Algebra Universalis, vol. 48 (2002), no. 3, pp. 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Blok, W. J., On the finite embeddability property for residuated ordered groupoids, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, to appear.Google Scholar
[3]Hori, R., Ono, H., and Schellinx, H., Extending intuitionistic logic with knotted structural rules, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 35 (1994), pp. 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Lafont, Y., The finite model property for various fragments of linear logic, this Journal, vol. 62 (1997), pp. 1202–1208.Google Scholar
[5]Lincoln, P., Mitchell, J., Scedrov, A., and Shankar, N., Decision problems for propositional linear logic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 56 (1992), pp. 239–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Nash-Williams, C. St. J. A., On well-quasi-ordering finite trees. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 59 (1963), pp. 833–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Okada, M. and Terui, K., The finite model property for various fragments of intuitionistic linear logic, this Journal, vol. 64 (1999), no. 2, pp. 790–802.Google Scholar
[8]Ono, H., Semantics for substructural logics, Substructural logics (Schroeder-Heister, P. and Došen, K., editors), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993.Google Scholar
[9]Troelstra, A. S., Lectures on linear logic, CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 29, 1992.Google Scholar
[10]van Alten, C. J. and Raftery, J. G., Rule separation and embedding theorems for logics without weakening, Stadia Logica, vol. 76 (2004), pp. 241–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar