Talk:Sequent calculus

Quantifiers

The presentation does not seem to be completely uniform concerning quantifiers: are first-order quantifiers taken into account? It would be nice.

A few related points:

• Why a distinction between atomic formulas and propositional variables?
• Some mixing between $\forall x A$ and $\forall X A$. I tried to propose a convention on that point, but it does not match here with the use of α for atoms.
• Define immediate subformula of $\forall X A$ as A?

-- Olivier Laurent 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I improved the uniformity for quantifiers: the full system with first and second order quantification is described, only predicate variables with first-order arguments are not described.

The distinction between atomic formulas and propositional variables is because there are systems with atomic formulas that are not propositional variables but fixed predicates like equalities.

I found α to be a used notation for atomic formulas in other texts, so I used ξ,ψ,ζ instead for arbitrary variables.

Using substitution in the definition of subformulas is questionable, but if the only immediate subformula of $\forall\xi.A$ is A, then the subformula property does not hold.

-- Emmanuel Beffara

Two-sided sequent calculus

I think the terminology "two-sided sequent calculus" should be used for the system where all the connectives are involved and all the rules are duplicated (with respect to the one-sided version) and negation is a connective.

In this way, we obtain the one-sided version from the two-sided one by:

• quotient the formulas by de Morgan laws and get negation only on atoms, negation is defined for compound formulas (not a connective)
• fold all the rules by $\Gamma\vdash\Delta \mapsto {}\vdash\Gamma\orth,\Delta$
• remove useless rules (negation rules become identities, almost all the rules appear twice)

A possible name for the two-sided system presented here could be "two-sided positive sequent calculus".

-- Olivier Laurent 21:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)