“Normal Proofs, Cut Free Derivations and Structural Rules,” Studia Logica 102:6 (2014) 1143–1166.

doi:10.1007/s11225-014-9598-4

 download pdf

Different natural deduction proof systems for intuitionistic and classical logic—and related logical systems—differ in fundamental properties while sharing significant family resemblances. These differences become quite stark when it comes to the structural rules of contraction and weakening. In this paper, I show how Gentzen and Jaśkowski’s natural deduction systems differ in fine structure. I also motivate directed proof nets as another natural deduction system which shares some of the design features of Genzen and Jaśkowski’s systems, but which differs again in its treatment of the structural rules, and has a range of virtues absent from traditional natural deduction systems.


Do you like this, or do you have a comment? Then please  share or reply on Twitter, or  email me.


← Pluralism and Proofs | Writing Archive | Assertion, Denial, Accepting, Rejecting, Symmetry and Paradox →

about

I’m Greg Restall, and this is my personal website. I teach philosophy and logic as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. ¶ Start at the home page of this site—a compendium of recent additions around here—and go from there to learn more about who I am and what I do. ¶ This is my personal site on the web. Nothing here is in any way endorsed by the University of Melbourne.

elsewhere

subscribe

To receive updates from this site, you can subscribe to the  RSS feed of all updates to the site in an RSS feed reader, or follow me on Twitter at  @consequently, where I’ll update you if anything is posted.

search