Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:29:03.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A semantics of evidence for classical arithmetic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Thierry Coquand
Thierry Coquand*
Affiliation:
Chalmers Tekniska Högskola, and University of Göteborg, Department of Computer Sciences, S-41296 Göteborg, Sweden, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If it is difficult to give the exact significance of consistency proofs from a classical point of view, in particular the proofs of Gentzen [2, 6], and Novikoff [14], the motivations of these proofs are quite clear intuitionistically. Their significance is then less to give a mere consistency proof than to present an intuitionistic explanation of the notion of classical truth. Gentzen for instance summarizes his proof as follows [6]: “Thus propositions of actualist mathematics seem to have a certain utility, but no sense. The major part of my consistency proof, however, consists precisely in ascribing a finitist sense to actualist propositions.” From this point of view, the main part of both Gentzen's and Novikoff's arguments can be stated as establishing that modus ponens is valid w.r.t. this interpretation ascribing a “finitist sense” to classical propositions.

In this paper, we reformulate Gentzen's and Novikoff's “finitist sense” of an arithmetic proposition as a winning strategy for a game associated to it. (To see a proof as a winning strategy has been considered by Lorenzen [10] for intuitionistic logic.) In the light of concurrency theory [7], it is tempting to consider a strategy as an interactive program (which represents thus the “finitist sense” of an arithmetic proposition). We shall show that the validity of modus ponens then gets a quite natural formulation, showing that “internal chatters” between two programs end eventually.

We first present Novikoff's notion of regular formulae, that can be seen as an intuitionistic truth definition for classical infinitary propositional calculus. We use this in order to motivate the second part, which presents a game-theoretic interpretation of the notion of regular formulae, and a proof of the admissibility of modus ponens which is based on this interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 325 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1995

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

[1]Abramsky, S., Computational interpretations of linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science (1993), pp. 3–57, Special issue for MFPS 1990.Google Scholar
[2]Bernays, P., On the original Gentzen consistency proof for number theory, Intuitionism and proof theory (Kino, A., Myhill, J., and Vesley, J. E., editors), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970, pp. 409–417.Google Scholar
[3]Blass, A., Degrees of indeterminancy of games, Fundamental Mathematicae, vol. LXXVII (1972), pp. 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Church, A., Review of Novikoff's article, this Journal, vol. 11 (1946), pp. 129–131.Google Scholar
[5]Constable, R., The semantics of evidence, Technical Report TR 85–684, Cornell University, Department of Computer Science, Ithaca, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
[6]Gentzen, G., The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, edited by Szabo, M. E..Google Scholar
[7]Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating sequential processes, Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
[8]Kleene, S. C., Introduction to metamathematics, North-Holland, 1952.Google Scholar
[9]Kreisel, G., Interpretation of non-finitist proofs, this Journal, vol. 17 (1952), pp. 50–56.Google Scholar
[10]Lorenzen, K., Ein dialogisches konskruktivitatskriterium, Infinitistic methods, Pergamon Press, 1962, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Mathematics, PWN, Warszawa, 1959, pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
[11]Martin-Löf, S. C., Notes on constructive mathematics, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1970.Google Scholar
[12]Mints, G., Proof theory in the USSR, 1925-1969, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 385–424.Google Scholar
[13]Murthy, C., Extracting constructive content from classical proofs, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1990.Google Scholar
[14]Novikoff, P. S., On the consistency of certain logical calculus, Matematiceskij sbornik (Recueil-Mathématique, T.12), vol. 54 (1943), pp. 230–260.Google Scholar
[15]Tait, W. W., Normal derivability in classical logic, The syntax and semantics of infinitary languages (Barwise, Jon, editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 72, Springer Verlag, 1968, pp. 204–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar