We study the Horn theories of Kleene algebras and star continuous Kleene algebras, from the complexity point of view. While their equational theories coincide and are PSpace-complete, their Horn theories differ and are undecidable. We characterise the Horn theory of star continuous Kleene algebras in terms of downward closed languages and we show that when restricting the shape of allowed hypotheses, the problems lie in various levels of the arithmetical or analytical hierarchy. We also answer a question posed by Cohen about hypotheses of the form 1 = S where S is a sum of letters: we show that it is decidable.

No abstract

Given that (co)inductive types are naturally modelled as fixed points, it is unsurprising that fixed-point logics are of interest in the study of programming languages, via the Curry-Howard (or proofs-as-programs) correspondence. This motivates investigations of the structural proof-theory of fixedpoint logics and of their cut-elimination procedures.Among the various approaches to proofs in fixed-point logics, circular -or cyclic -proofs, are of interest in this regard but suffer from a number of limitations, most notably from a quite restricted use of cuts. Indeed, the validity condition which ensures soundness of non-wellfounded derivations and productivity of their cut-elimination prevents some computationally-relevant patterns of cuts. As a result, traditional circular proofs cannot serve as a basis for a theory of (co)recursive programming by lack of compositionality: there are not enough circular proofs and they compose badly.The present paper addresses some of these limitations by developing the circular and non-wellfounded proof-theory of multiplicative additive linear logic with fixed points (µMALL) beyond the scope of the seminal works of Santocanale and Fortier and of Baelde et al. We define bouncing-validity: a new, generalized, validity criterion for µMALL ∞ , which takes axioms and cuts into account. We show soundness and cut elimination theorems for bouncing-valid non-wellfounded proofs: as a result, even though bouncing-validity proves the same sequents (or judgments) as before, we have many more valid proofs at our disposal. We illustrate the computational relevance of bouncing-validity on a number of examples. Finally, we study the decidability of the criterion in the circular case: we prove it is undecidable in general but identify a hierarchy of decidable sub-criteria.