{"title":"广义克雷塞尔-普特南规则的构造有效性","authors":"Ivo Pezlar","doi":"10.1007/s11225-024-10129-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper, we propose a computational interpretation of the generalized Kreisel–Putnam rule, also known as the generalized Harrop rule or simply the Split rule, in the style of BHK semantics. We will achieve this by exploiting the Curry–Howard correspondence between formulas and types. First, we inspect the inferential behavior of the Split rule in the setting of a natural deduction system for intuitionistic propositional logic. This will guide our process of formulating an appropriate program that would capture the corresponding computational content of the typed Split rule. Our investigation can also be reframed as an effort to answer the following question: is the Split rule constructively valid in the sense of BHK semantics? Our answer is positive for the Split rule as well as for its newly proposed general version called the S rule.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constructive Validity of a Generalized Kreisel–Putnam Rule\",\"authors\":\"Ivo Pezlar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11225-024-10129-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this paper, we propose a computational interpretation of the generalized Kreisel–Putnam rule, also known as the generalized Harrop rule or simply the Split rule, in the style of BHK semantics. We will achieve this by exploiting the Curry–Howard correspondence between formulas and types. First, we inspect the inferential behavior of the Split rule in the setting of a natural deduction system for intuitionistic propositional logic. This will guide our process of formulating an appropriate program that would capture the corresponding computational content of the typed Split rule. Our investigation can also be reframed as an effort to answer the following question: is the Split rule constructively valid in the sense of BHK semantics? Our answer is positive for the Split rule as well as for its newly proposed general version called the S rule.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-024-10129-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-024-10129-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在本文中,我们以 BHK 语义的风格提出了广义克雷塞尔-普特南规则(又称广义哈洛普规则或简称斯普利特规则)的计算解释。我们将利用公式与类型之间的柯里-霍华德对应关系来实现这一目标。首先,我们将在直观命题逻辑的自然演绎系统中考察斯普利特规则的推理行为。这将指导我们制定适当的程序,以捕捉类型化拆分规则的相应计算内容。我们的研究也可以重构为回答以下问题的努力:在 BHK 语义的意义上,Split 规则是构造有效的吗?对于斯普利特规则及其新提出的一般版本 S 规则,我们的答案是肯定的。
Constructive Validity of a Generalized Kreisel–Putnam Rule
In this paper, we propose a computational interpretation of the generalized Kreisel–Putnam rule, also known as the generalized Harrop rule or simply the Split rule, in the style of BHK semantics. We will achieve this by exploiting the Curry–Howard correspondence between formulas and types. First, we inspect the inferential behavior of the Split rule in the setting of a natural deduction system for intuitionistic propositional logic. This will guide our process of formulating an appropriate program that would capture the corresponding computational content of the typed Split rule. Our investigation can also be reframed as an effort to answer the following question: is the Split rule constructively valid in the sense of BHK semantics? Our answer is positive for the Split rule as well as for its newly proposed general version called the S rule.