English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Circular (ie. non-wellfounded but regular) proofs have received increasing interest in recent years with the simultaneous development of their applications and meta-theory: infinitary proof theory is now well-established in several proof-theoretical frameworks such as Martin Löf’s inductive predicates, linear logic with fixed points, etc. In the setting of non-wellfounded proofs, a validity criterion is necessary to distinguish, among all infinite derivation trees (aka. pre-proofs), those which are logically valid proofs. A standard approach is to consider a pre-proof to be valid if every infinite branch is supported by an infinitely progressing thread. The paper focuses on circular proofs for MALL with fixed points. Among all representations of valid circular proofs, a new fragment is described, based on a stronger validity criterion. This new criterion is based on a labelling of formulas and proofs, whose validity is purely local. This allows this fragment to be easily handled, while being expressive enough to still contain all circular embeddings of Baelde’s μMALL finite proofs with (co)inductive invariants: in particular deciding validity and computing a certifying labelling can be done efficiently. Moreover the BrotherstonSimpson conjecture holds for this fragment: every labelled representation of a circular proof in the fragment is translated into a standard finitary proof. Finally we explore how to extend these results to a bigger fragment, by relaxing the labelling discipline while retaining (i) the ability to locally certify the validity and (ii) to some extent, the ability to finitize circular proofs. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Logic, Theory of computation → Proof theory, Theory of computation → Linear logic, Theory of computation → Logic and verification

Local Validity for Circular Proofs in Linear Logic with Fixed Points