Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Re: The curse of Negri & Plato (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A
 Meteoric Rise)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:01:00 +0200
Message-ID: <v67k4s$6l2j$3@solani.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v67k2b$6l2j$2@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 02:01:00 -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:XcO+p0Mc7qbo/pxuisY8nvRGz1c=
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXJpSC56DY/09YEs7Fm2AQoVBZbHYFax72A/uNLNPWKcqnzrvgCFowRH+AirPH09W6P0x4Fbk=
In-Reply-To: <v67k2b$6l2j$2@solani.org>
Bytes: 4714
Lines: 120

Hi,

I am not halucinating that Negri is nonsense:

This calculus does not terminate (e.g. on Peirce’s
formula). Negri [42] shows how to add a loop-checking
mechanism to ensure termination. The effect on complexity
isn’t yet clear; but the loop-checking is expensive.

Intuitionistic Decision Procedures since Gentzen
The Jägerfest - 2013
https://apt13.unibe.ch/slides/Dyckhoff.pdf

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 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.
>