2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.jal.2013.07.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relational semantics for full linear logic

Abstract: Relational semantics, given by Kripke frames, play an essential role in the study of modal and intuitionistic logic. In [DGP05] it is shown that the theory of relational semantics is also available in the more general setting of substructural logic, at least in an algebraic guise. Building on these ideas, in [Geh06] a type of frames is described which generalise Kripke frames and provide semantics for substructural logics in a purely relational form.In this paper we study full linear logic from an algebraic po… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The ensuing translation stage computed in [15] takes (the notational counterpart of) the pure inequality i ⊥⊥ ≤ i as input. The quoted claim above is not explicitly justified, but is a consequence of the following observation, which appears early on in the text [15]: Implication sends joins in the first coordinate to meets, hence (·) ⊥ sends joins to meets. As (·) ⊥ is a bijection, it follows that it is a (bijective) lattice homomorphism L → L ∂ , where L ∂ is the lattice obtained by reversing the order in L.…”
Section: Lemma 25mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The ensuing translation stage computed in [15] takes (the notational counterpart of) the pure inequality i ⊥⊥ ≤ i as input. The quoted claim above is not explicitly justified, but is a consequence of the following observation, which appears early on in the text [15]: Implication sends joins in the first coordinate to meets, hence (·) ⊥ sends joins to meets. As (·) ⊥ is a bijection, it follows that it is a (bijective) lattice homomorphism L → L ∂ , where L ∂ is the lattice obtained by reversing the order in L.…”
Section: Lemma 25mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the years, many extensions, variations and analogues of this result have appeared, including alternative proofs in e.g. [42], generalizations to arbitrary modal signatures [17], variations of the correspondence language [37,47], Sahlqvist-type results for hybrid logics [44], various substructural logics [31,43,15], mu calculus [48], enlargements of the Sahlqvist class to e.g. the inductive formulas of [27], to mention but a few.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Residuated lattices. To describe some of the structures appearing in [8,11,3,6], let L * = L ∪ {T } with T a ternary relation symbol. An L * -structure has the form P = (X, Y, R, T ).…”
Section: Definable Operations Over Polaritiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the same sort of way that Kripke frames have been used to model Boolean modal logics, polarities have been used to provide a relational semantics for various non-distributive substructural logics. These include the implication-fusion fragments of relevant logic, BCK logic and others [8,11]; the full Lambek-Grishin calculus [3] and linear logic [6]; and logics with unary modalities [4,5]. Algebraically these systems are modelled by (typically non-distributive) lattice expansions, i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is not yet a theory of operations on the stable set lattices of polarities that is as general as the construction by Jónsson and Tarski [74] of n-ary operations on Boolean set algebras from n+1-ary relations. But there has been extensive work on the expansion of a polarity P by ternary relations, as subsets of X × X × Y and X × Y × Y , that are used to define residuated binary operations on P + which model various connectives in substructural logics [25,28,12,16]. Also in [13,14] there are expansions of P by binary relations, on X and on Y and from X to Y and Y to X, that are used to model various unary modalities.…”
Section: Generating Canonical Varietiesmentioning
confidence: 99%