Révision 181
CSL17/arithmetic.tex (revision 181) | ||
---|---|---|
295 | 295 |
Say that a sequent $\Gamma \seqar \Delta$ is \textit{well-typed} if for any free variable $x$ occurring in $\Gamma$ or $\Delta$, there exists a formula $\safe(x)$ or $\normal(x)$ in $\Gamma$. A proof is well-typed if its sequence are. |
296 | 296 |
|
297 | 297 |
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:welltyped} |
298 |
If a well-typed sequent $\Gamma \seqar \Delta$ is provable, then it admits a well-typed proof. |
|
298 |
If a well-typed sequent $\Gamma \seqar \Delta$ is provable, then there exists $\vec u$ such that |
|
299 |
the sequent $\normal(\vec u), \Gamma \seqar \Delta$ admits a well-typed proof. |
|
299 | 300 |
\end{lemma} |
300 |
\begin{proof} |
|
301 |
First by Thm \ref{thm:freecutelimination} we know that $\Gamma \seqar \Delta$ admits a proof $\pi$ without any free-cut. Let us then prove that $\pi$ can be transformed in a proof $\pi'$ of same conclusion and such that, for any sequent, if it is well-typed then its premises are well-typed. |
|
302 |
|
|
303 |
\patrick{to be finished} |
|
304 |
\end{proof} |
|
301 |
\patrick{It seems to me the statement had to be modified so as to prove the lemma. Maybe I misunderstand something.} |
|
302 |
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch] |
|
303 |
First by Thm \ref{thm:freecutelimination} we know that $\Gamma \seqar \Delta$ admits a proof $\pi$ without any free-cut. Let us then prove that $\pi$ can be transformed in a proof $\pi'$ of conclusion of the form $\normal(\vec u), \Gamma \seqar \Delta$ and such that, for any sequent, if it is well-typed then its premises are well-typed. |
|
304 |
|
|
305 |
Observe first that by definition of $\arith^i$ and the absence of free cut, all quantifiers occurring in a formula of the proof are of one of the forms |
|
306 |
$\forall^{\safe}$, $\exists^{\safe}$, $\forall^{\normal}$, $\exists^{\normal}$, and for the last two ones they are sharply bounded. |
|
307 |
|
|
308 |
Then, one can check that for all rules but the quantifier rules and the cut rule, if the conclusion is well-typed, then so are the two premises. For the remaining rules, $\forall-r$ and $\exists-l$ are unproblematic, because of the observation above. Let us now examine the case of $\exists-r$, with a $\safe$ label, and the other rules can be treated in the same way. In the premise we get a formula $\safe(t) \cand A(t)$. Then what we do is that, if $\vec u$ denote the free variables of $t$, we add to the context of all sequents of the proof $\normal(\vec u)$. We obtain in this way a valid proof new proof, and the premises of the rule have become well-typed. |
|
309 |
\end{proof} |
|
305 | 310 |
|
306 | 311 |
\patrick{ TODO: define integer-positive sequents and proofs.} |
307 | 312 |
|
Formats disponibles : Unified diff