4.3 Comparison of natural deduction and sequent calculus
3 min read•august 7, 2024
and are two key proof systems in logic. While both can prove the same theorems, they differ in structure and properties. Natural deduction mimics human reasoning, while sequent calculus offers a more symmetric approach.
Sequent calculus shines in proof search and automated reasoning due to its and . Natural deduction, however, often feels more intuitive to humans. Both systems have found applications in programming languages and type theory.
Structural Differences and Properties
Proof Structure and Symmetry
Top images from around the web for Proof Structure and Symmetry
logic - Natural Deduction Tautology - Mathematics Stack Exchange View original
Is this image relevant?
logic - Natural deduction proof of $\forall x (\exists y (P(x) \vee Q(y))) \vdash \exists y ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Predicate Logic (Natural deduction & transcription) - Philosophy Stack Exchange View original
Is this image relevant?
logic - Natural Deduction Tautology - Mathematics Stack Exchange View original
Is this image relevant?
logic - Natural deduction proof of $\forall x (\exists y (P(x) \vee Q(y))) \vdash \exists y ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Proof Structure and Symmetry
logic - Natural Deduction Tautology - Mathematics Stack Exchange View original
Is this image relevant?
logic - Natural deduction proof of $\forall x (\exists y (P(x) \vee Q(y))) \vdash \exists y ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Predicate Logic (Natural deduction & transcription) - Philosophy Stack Exchange View original
Is this image relevant?
logic - Natural Deduction Tautology - Mathematics Stack Exchange View original
Is this image relevant?
logic - Natural deduction proof of $\forall x (\exists y (P(x) \vee Q(y))) \vdash \exists y ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Natural deduction proofs have a tree-like structure with assumptions at the leaves and the conclusion at the root
- Sequent calculus proofs have a more symmetric structure with left and right rules for each connective
- Left rules decompose formulas on the left side of the turnstile ()
- Right rules decompose formulas on the right side of the turnstile
- The symmetric nature of sequent calculus rules allows for a more uniform proof search compared to natural deduction
- Sequent calculus rules maintain the balance between the left and right sides of the sequent throughout the proof
Subformula Property and Cut Elimination
- The subformula property states that every formula appearing in a sequent calculus proof is a subformula of the formulas in the conclusion sequent
- This property holds for cut-free proofs in sequent calculus
- Natural deduction proofs do not always satisfy the subformula property due to the introduction and
- Cut elimination is the process of transforming a sequent calculus proof with cuts into a cut-free proof
- The allows the use of lemmas in sequent calculus proofs
- Gentzen's cut elimination theorem proves that any sequent calculus proof can be transformed into a cut-free proof
- Cut-free proofs in sequent calculus satisfy the subformula property, leading to a more streamlined proof structure
Expressiveness and Applications
Expressiveness and Proof Search
- Both natural deduction and sequent calculus are expressive enough to capture classical and intuitionistic logic
- Sequent calculus is more suitable for proof search algorithms due to its symmetric rule structure
- Proof search in sequent calculus can be performed by applying rules bottom-up, reducing the goal sequent to simpler subgoals
- The subformula property in cut-free sequent calculus proofs limits the search space for proof search algorithms
- Natural deduction proofs can be more intuitive for humans to construct and understand, as they resemble the reasoning process more closely
Applications in Programming Languages
- The Curry-Howard establishes a connection between proofs and programs
- Propositions in logic correspond to types in programming languages
- Proofs of propositions correspond to programs of the corresponding type
- Sequent calculus has been used as a foundation for type systems in programming languages
- The symmetry and subformula property of sequent calculus make it suitable for type checking and type inference algorithms
- Natural deduction has been used as a basis for the design of functional programming languages (Haskell, ML)
- Introduction and elimination rules in natural deduction correspond to constructors and pattern matching in functional programming
Key Terms to Review (20)
A → b: The notation 'a → b' represents a logical implication, meaning that if proposition 'a' is true, then proposition 'b' must also be true. This concept is fundamental in logic and reasoning, illustrating the relationship between conditions and their consequences. Understanding this implication helps clarify how premises lead to conclusions in logical systems, particularly when comparing different proof systems.
Completeness: Completeness refers to a property of a formal system where every statement that is true in all models of the system can be proven within that system. This concept is crucial because it connects syntax and semantics, ensuring that if something is logically valid, there's a way to derive it through formal proofs.
Correspondence: Correspondence refers to the systematic relationship between different logical systems, particularly how one system can represent or relate to another. In the context of natural deduction and sequent calculus, it highlights the connections and similarities in their structural rules and derivations, showing how each can capture the same logical truths, albeit through different approaches and notational conventions.
Cut Elimination: Cut elimination is a fundamental process in proof theory that aims to simplify proofs by removing 'cut' rules, which allow for the introduction of intermediate assertions not originally present in the premises. This concept is crucial for understanding the efficiency and structure of proofs, as it transforms proofs into a more direct form, aligning them closer to intuitionistic principles and providing a clearer representation of derivations.
Cut Rule: The cut rule is a principle in proof theory that allows for the introduction of intermediate formulas in the derivation process, enabling more complex proofs by breaking them down into simpler components. This rule highlights the difference between natural deduction and sequent calculus, as it can be seen as a mechanism for managing how assumptions are applied and discharged within a proof. Understanding the cut rule is essential for grasping the structure of proofs in both propositional and first-order logic.
Derivation: In proof theory, derivation refers to a formal sequence of statements or formulas that demonstrates the validity of a particular conclusion based on established axioms and inference rules. Derivations are crucial for understanding how logical conclusions can be reached systematically within formal systems, showcasing the relationship between premises and conclusions through various proof techniques.
Direct Proofs: Direct proofs are a method of demonstrating the truth of a mathematical statement by starting with known facts and applying logical reasoning to arrive at the conclusion. This approach relies on established axioms, definitions, and previously proven theorems, making it a straightforward way to establish validity without ambiguity. It's especially important in comparing natural deduction and sequent calculus as both frameworks utilize direct proofs in different manners, highlighting their strengths and applications in formal logic.
Elimination Rules: Elimination rules are logical rules used in proof systems that allow for the removal of a specific logical operator from a formula, enabling the conclusion to be derived from premises containing that operator. These rules are crucial in both natural deduction and sequent calculus, as they help define how one can infer new statements from existing ones by breaking down complex expressions into simpler components. The concept also ties into proof-theoretic semantics, emphasizing how the meaning of logical constructs can be understood through their usage in proofs.
Gentzen's Consistency Proof: Gentzen's Consistency Proof is a significant result in proof theory that demonstrates the consistency of first-order logic by showing that no contradictions can be derived from a given formal system. This proof uses a sequent calculus approach, revealing important connections between natural deduction and sequent calculus, while also allowing for deeper analysis through proof-theoretic reductions and ordinal analysis.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states that in any consistent formal system that is capable of expressing basic arithmetic, there are statements that cannot be proven true or false within that system. This theorem has profound implications for the limits of provability and the relationship between syntax and semantics in mathematical logic, revealing that no formal system can capture all mathematical truths.
Indirect Proofs: Indirect proofs are a method of proving a statement by assuming the opposite of what you want to prove and showing that this assumption leads to a contradiction. This technique is often used in mathematical logic and proof theory to establish the validity of a statement indirectly. By revealing inconsistencies that arise from the false assumption, indirect proofs demonstrate that the original statement must be true.
Introduction Rules: Introduction rules are specific guidelines in proof systems that dictate how to introduce logical connectives or quantifiers in a formal proof. These rules are crucial because they define how certain propositions can be derived based on the logical structure of the proof, whether in natural deduction or sequent calculus. They establish the conditions under which new formulas can be added to the proof, serving as a foundation for constructing valid arguments.
Natural Deduction: Natural deduction is a proof system used in logic that allows one to derive conclusions from premises using a set of inference rules in a structured and intuitive way. It emphasizes the natural reasoning process, enabling proofs to be constructed through the application of these rules without the need for additional axioms or complex structures, making it particularly useful in various fields of mathematics and philosophy.
Proof Tree: A proof tree is a graphical representation of the structure of a formal proof, illustrating how the conclusion follows from a set of premises through various inference rules. This visual format helps to clarify the relationships between different propositions and the rules applied at each step, making it easier to analyze and understand the flow of reasoning within logical arguments.
Sequent Calculus: Sequent calculus is a formal proof system designed for deriving sequents, which express the validity of implications between formulas in logic. It serves as a key framework for studying proof theory, enabling structured reasoning about logical statements and their relationships, particularly in first-order logic and intuitionistic logic.
Soundness: Soundness is a property of a logical system that ensures if a statement can be proven within that system, then it is true in every model of the system. This concept guarantees that no false statements can be derived from the axioms and rules of inference, connecting the syntactic structure of proofs to their semantic meaning in models.
Structural Rules: Structural rules are foundational components in proof systems that govern the manipulation and arrangement of formulas within proofs. They play a crucial role in defining how propositions can be combined, separated, or preserved during logical reasoning, and are essential in both natural deduction and sequent calculus frameworks, impacting how proofs are constructed and understood.
Subformula Property: The subformula property is a concept in proof theory that asserts every formula that appears in a proof must be a subformula of the initial assumptions or the conclusion. This property highlights how proofs are constructed in a way that maintains the integrity of logical deductions, ensuring that no extraneous formulas are introduced. This characteristic becomes crucial when comparing different proof systems and understanding how they manage the components of proofs, particularly in relation to cut elimination and its implications for propositional logic.
Translation: In proof theory, translation refers to the process of converting statements or proofs from one logical system into another while preserving their meaning and validity. This concept is essential for understanding the relationships between different logical frameworks, as it enables a comparison of their structures and principles, and helps to establish the equivalence of systems like natural deduction and sequent calculus, classical and intuitionistic logic, and various modal logics.
γ ⊢ a: The notation 'γ ⊢ a' represents a sequent in proof theory, indicating that under the assumptions or context γ, the statement a can be derived or proven. This expression connects logical frameworks by showing how certain premises lead to a conclusion, a key feature in understanding both natural deduction and sequent calculus.