Concerning formulas of the types A→B ν C,A →(Ex)B(x) in intuitionistic formal systems

Abstract

In a previous paper [1] it was proved, among other results, that a closed disjunction of intuitionistic elementary number theory N can be proved if and only if at least one of its disjunctands is provable and that a closed formula of the type (Ex)B(x) is provable in N if and only if B(n) is provable for some numeral n. The method of proof was to show that, as far as closed formulas are concerned, N is equivalent to a calculus N1 for which the result is immediate. The main step in the proof consisted in showing that the set of provable formulas of N1 is closed under modus ponens. This was done by obtaining a subset of the set which is closed under modus ponens and contains all members of the original set, with which it is therefore identical.

Completeness in Proof-Theoretic Semantics

“…This has been proved in [16] by showing that the intuitionistically non-derivable Harrop or Kreisel-Putnam formula (see Harrop [9], Kreisel and Putnam [11]) is intuitionistically valid under substitution, that is, that…”

Cut Elimination for First Order Gödel Logic by Hyperclause Resolution

“…It turns out that hyperCERES is applicable to the class of (intuitionistic) hypersequents not containing negative occurrences of ∨ or positive occurrences of ∀, as the distribution rule (distr) is still sound for this fragment of I. This fragment actually is an extension of the Harrop class [14] with weak quantifiers.…”

The Semantics of Entailment Omega

“…The crucial idea to which we appeal in this paper to overcome the failure of the previous section is in Harrop's paper [13]. To take advantage of it, we define the set HF orm ⊆ F orm∨ of Harrop formulas as follows:…”