Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Structural rule
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{Short description|Rule of mathematical logic}} {{for|the type of rule used in linguistics|phrase structure rule}} In the [[formal logic|logical]] discipline of [[proof theory]], a '''structural rule''' is an [[inference rule]] of a [[sequent calculus]] that does not refer to any [[logical connective]] but instead operates on the [[sequent]]s directly.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Gentzen |first=Gerhard |date=1935 |title=Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I, Mathematische Zeitschrift |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF01201353 |journal=Mathematische Zeitschrift |language=de |volume=39 |issue=1 |pages=176–210 |doi=10.1007/BF01201353 |issn=0025-5874|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Szabo |first=M. E. |title=Collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen |date=1969 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-444-53419-4 |location=Place of publication not identified}}</ref> Structural rules often mimic the intended meta-theoretic properties of the logic. Logics that deny one or more of the structural rules are classified as [[substructural logic]]s. ==Common structural rules== Three common structural rules are:<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Jacobs |first=Bart |date=1994 |title=Semantics of weakening and contraction |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0168007294900205 |journal=Annals of Pure and Applied Logic |language=en |volume=69 |issue=1 |pages=73–106 |doi=10.1016/0168-0072(94)90020-5|url-access=subscription }}</ref> * '''{{vanchor|Weakening}}''', where the hypotheses or conclusion of a sequence may be extended with additional members. In symbolic form weakening rules can be written as <math>\frac{\Gamma \vdash \Sigma}{\Gamma, A \vdash \Sigma}</math> on the left of the [[Turnstile (symbol)|turnstile]], and <math>\frac{\Gamma \vdash \Sigma}{\Gamma \vdash \Sigma, A}</math> on the right. Known as [[monotonicity of entailment]] in classical logic. <!--N.B. the A on the bottom *is* the correct way around for the right weakening rule; see the talk page--> * '''{{vanchor|Contraction}}''', where two equal (or unifiable) members on the same side of a sequent may be replaced by a single member (or common instance). Symbolically: <math>\frac{\Gamma, A, A \vdash \Sigma}{\Gamma, A \vdash \Sigma}</math> and <math>\frac{\Gamma \vdash A, A, \Sigma}{\Gamma \vdash A, \Sigma}</math>. Also known as '''factoring''' in [[automated theorem proving]] systems using [[Resolution (logic)|resolution]]. Known as '''idempotency of entailment''' in classical logic. * '''Exchange''', where two members on the same side of a sequent may be swapped. Symbolically: <math>\frac{\Gamma_1, A, \Gamma_2, B, \Gamma_3 \vdash \Sigma}{\Gamma_1, B, \Gamma_2, A, \Gamma_3 \vdash \Sigma}</math> and <math>\frac{\Gamma \vdash \Sigma_1, A, \Sigma_2, B, \Sigma_3}{\Gamma \vdash \Sigma_1, B, \Sigma_2, A, \Sigma_3}</math>. (This is also known as the ''permutation rule''.) A logic without any of the above structural rules would interpret the sides of a sequent as pure [[sequence]]s; with exchange, they can be considered to be [[multiset]]s; and with both contraction and exchange they can be considered to be [[set (mathematics)|set]]s. These are not the only possible structural rules. A famous structural rule is known as '''[[cut rule|cut]]'''.<ref name=":0" /> Considerable effort is spent by proof theorists in showing that cut rules are superfluous in various logics. More precisely, what is shown is that cut is only (in a sense) a tool for abbreviating proofs, and does not add to the theorems that can be proved. The successful 'removal' of cut rules, known as ''[[Cut-elimination theorem|cut elimination]]'', is directly related to the philosophy of ''[[computation]] as normalization'' (see [[Curry–Howard correspondence]]); it often gives a good indication of the [[computational complexity theory|complexity]] of [[decision problem|deciding]] a given logic. ==See also== *{{annotated link|Affine logic}} *{{annotated link|Linear logic}} *{{annotated link|Ordered logic (linear logic)}} *{{annotated link|Relevance logic}} *{{annotated link|Separation logic}} ==References== {{Reflist}} {{Non-classical logic}} [[Category:Proof theory]] [[Category:Rules of inference]]
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page
(
help
)
:
Template:Annotated link
(
edit
)
Template:Cite book
(
edit
)
Template:Cite journal
(
edit
)
Template:For
(
edit
)
Template:Non-classical logic
(
edit
)
Template:Reflist
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Vanchor
(
edit
)