Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: The curse of Negri & Plato (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A
 Meteoric Rise)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 03:59:39 +0200
Message-ID: <v67k2b$6l2j$2@solani.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 01:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="218195"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w0ZuvTybA4IYJo3mPiCFXVs6zbg=
In-Reply-To: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org>
X-User-ID: eJwNykkBwDAIBEBLULIE5HD6l5DOeyDKWvco9GCxMibXBkXBniR+vqZkLybegY5s9387jMJUA4GczXKZaK4HS0MWFw==
Bytes: 4090
Lines: 103

Hi,

A few years ago I was impressed by
the output of either Negri or Plato,
or the two together.

Now they are just an annoyance, all
they show is that they are neither talented
nor have sufficient training.

Just have a look at:

 > Terminating intuitionistic calculus
 > Giulio Fellin and Sara Negri
 > https://philpapers.org/rec/FELATI

Beside the too obvious creative idea and motive
behind it, it is most likely complete useless
nonsense. Already this presentation in the

paper shows utter incompetence:

Γ, A → B ⊢ A           Γ, A → B, B ⊢ Δ
----------------------------------------
            Γ, A → B  ⊢ Δ

Everybody in the business knows that the
looping, resulting from the A → B copying,
is a fact. But can be reduced since the

copying on the right hand side is not needed.

Γ, A → B ⊢ A           Γ, B ⊢ Δ
--------------------------------
         Γ, A → B  ⊢ Δ

The above variant is enough. Just like Dragalin
presented the calculus. I really wish people
would completely understand these master pieces,

before they even touch multi consequent calculi:

Mathematical Intuitionism: Introduction to Proof Theory
Albert Grigorevich Dragalin - 1988
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0821845209

Contraction-Free Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Logic
Roy Dyckhoff - 1992
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~fp//courses/atp/cmuonly/D92.pdf

Whats the deeper semantic (sic!) explanation of the
two calculi GHPC and GCPC? I have a Kripke semantics
explanation in my notes, didn't release it yet.

Have Fun!

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
> world was asleep for many years:
> 
> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
> 
> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
> for symple types:
> 
> ----------------
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
> 
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
> ----------------
> Γ ⊢ A → B
> 
> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
> ----------------------------
> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
> 
> And funny things can happen, especially when people
> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
> 
> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
> 
> Recommended reading so far:
> 
> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
> 
> The Logic of Church and Curry
> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
> 
> logic without embedded implication.