Editing Analytic proof (section)

==Structural proof theory==

In proof theory, the notion of analytic proof provides the fundamental concept that brings out the similarities between a number of essentially distinct [[proof calculus|proof calculi]], so defining the subfield of [[structural proof theory]]. There is no uncontroversial general definition of analytic proof, but for several proof calculi there is an accepted notion.  For example:

* In [[Gerhard Gentzen]]'s [[natural deduction calculus]] the analytic proofs are those in normal form; that is, no formula occurrence is both the principal premise of an elimination rule and the conclusion of an introduction rule;
* In Gentzen's [[sequent calculus]] the analytic proofs are those that do not use the [[cut-elimination|cut rule]].

However, it is possible to extend the [[inference rule]]s of both calculi so that there are proofs that satisfy the condition but are not analytic.  For example, a particularly tricky example of this is the ''analytic cut rule'', used widely in the [[tableau method]], which is a special case of the cut rule where the cut formula is a [[subformula]] of side formulae of the cut rule: a proof that contains an analytic cut is by virtue of that rule not analytic.

Furthermore, proof calculi that are not analogous to Gentzen's calculi have other notions of analytic proof.  For example, the [[calculus of structures]] organises its inference rules into pairs, called the up fragment and the down fragment, and an analytic proof is one that only contains the down fragment.