Révision 181 CSL17/arithmetic.tex

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