Some remarks on proof-theoretic semantics

Roy Dyckhoff

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6_5

Some remarks on proof-theoretic semantics

Roy Dyckhoff

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review

Abstract

This is a tripartite work. The first part is a brief discussion of what it is to be a logical constant, rejecting a view that allows a particular self-referential “constant” • to be such a thing in favour of a view that leads to strong normalisation results. The second part is a commentary on the flattened version of Modus Ponens, and its relationship with rules of type theory. The third part is a commentary on work (joint with Nissim Francez) on “general elimination rules” and harmony, with a retraction of one of the main ideas of that work, i.e. the use of “flattened” general elimination rules for situations with discharge of assumptions. We begin with some general background on general elimination rules.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Advances in Proof-Theoretic Semantics
Editors	Thomas Piecha, Peter Schroeder-Heister
Publisher	Springer
Pages	79-93
Number of pages	15
ISBN (Electronic)	9783319226866
ISBN (Print)	9783319226859
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6_5
Publication status	Published - 2016
Event	Second Conference on Proof-Theoretic Semantics - Schloß Hohentübingen, Seminarraum 165, Tübingen, Germany Duration: 8 Mar 2013 → 10 Mar 2013

Publication series

Name	Trends in Logic
Volume	43
ISSN (Print)	1572-6126

Conference

Conference	Second Conference on Proof-Theoretic Semantics
Country/Territory	Germany
City	Tübingen
Period	8/03/13 → 10/03/13

Keywords

General elimination rules
Harmony
Strong normalisation

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6_5Licence: CC BY-NC

Dyckhoff_2015_ADVPROOFTHEORYSEM_CC-BY-NC
Copyright the Authors 2016. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Final published version, 171 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@inbook{1d457e846f574c46b801dc0037067670,

title = "Some remarks on proof-theoretic semantics",

abstract = "This is a tripartite work. The first part is a brief discussion of what it is to be a logical constant, rejecting a view that allows a particular self-referential “constant” • to be such a thing in favour of a view that leads to strong normalisation results. The second part is a commentary on the flattened version of Modus Ponens, and its relationship with rules of type theory. The third part is a commentary on work (joint with Nissim Francez) on “general elimination rules” and harmony, with a retraction of one of the main ideas of that work, i.e. the use of “flattened” general elimination rules for situations with discharge of assumptions. We begin with some general background on general elimination rules.",

keywords = "General elimination rules, Harmony, Strong normalisation",

author = "Roy Dyckhoff",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6_5",

language = "English",

isbn = "9783319226859",

series = "Trends in Logic",

publisher = "Springer",

pages = "79--93",

editor = "Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister",

booktitle = "Advances in Proof-Theoretic Semantics",

address = "Netherlands",

note = "Second Conference on Proof-Theoretic Semantics ; Conference date: 08-03-2013 Through 10-03-2013",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Some remarks on proof-theoretic semantics

AU - Dyckhoff, Roy

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - This is a tripartite work. The first part is a brief discussion of what it is to be a logical constant, rejecting a view that allows a particular self-referential “constant” • to be such a thing in favour of a view that leads to strong normalisation results. The second part is a commentary on the flattened version of Modus Ponens, and its relationship with rules of type theory. The third part is a commentary on work (joint with Nissim Francez) on “general elimination rules” and harmony, with a retraction of one of the main ideas of that work, i.e. the use of “flattened” general elimination rules for situations with discharge of assumptions. We begin with some general background on general elimination rules.

AB - This is a tripartite work. The first part is a brief discussion of what it is to be a logical constant, rejecting a view that allows a particular self-referential “constant” • to be such a thing in favour of a view that leads to strong normalisation results. The second part is a commentary on the flattened version of Modus Ponens, and its relationship with rules of type theory. The third part is a commentary on work (joint with Nissim Francez) on “general elimination rules” and harmony, with a retraction of one of the main ideas of that work, i.e. the use of “flattened” general elimination rules for situations with discharge of assumptions. We begin with some general background on general elimination rules.

KW - General elimination rules

KW - Harmony

KW - Strong normalisation

UR - http://ls.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/PTS/

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6_5

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6_5

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

SN - 9783319226859

T3 - Trends in Logic

SP - 79

EP - 93

BT - Advances in Proof-Theoretic Semantics

A2 - Piecha, Thomas

A2 - Schroeder-Heister, Peter

PB - Springer

T2 - Second Conference on Proof-Theoretic Semantics

Y2 - 8 March 2013 through 10 March 2013

ER -

Some remarks on proof-theoretic semantics

Abstract

Publication series

Conference

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this