Skip to main content
Log in

Translations Between Gentzen–Prawitz and Jaśkowski–Fitch Natural Deduction Proofs

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two common forms of natural deduction proof systems are found in the Gentzen–Prawitz and Jaśkowski–Fitch systems. In this paper, I provide translations between proofs in these systems, pointing out the ways in which the translations highlight the structural rules implicit in the systems. These translations work for classical, intuitionistic, and minimal logic. I then provide translations for classical S4 proofs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson, A. R., and N. D. Belnap, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Neccessity, volume 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barker-Plummer, D., J. Barwise, and J. Etchemendy, Language, Proof and Logic. CSLI Publications, 2nd edition, 2011.

  3. Benton, N., G. Bierman, V. de Paiva, and M. Hyland, A term calculus for intuitionistic linear logic, in M. Bezem and J. F. Groote, (eds.), Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1993, pp. 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0037099.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, NP, 2002.

  5. Blizard, W. D., Multiset theory, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30(1): 36–66, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093634995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brady, R. T., Natural deduction systems for some quantified relevant logics, Logique Et Analyse 27(8): 355–377, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brady, R. T., Normalized natural deduction systems for some relevant logics I: The logic DW, Journal of Symbolic Logic 71(1): 35–66, 2006. https://doi.org/10.2178/jsl/1140641162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brady, R. T., Free semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39(5): 511–529, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9129-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fitch, F. B., Symbolic Logic. Ronald Press Co., New York, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fitch, F. B., Natural deduction rules for obligation. American Philosophical Quarterly 3(1): 27–38, January 1966.

  11. Garson, J. W., Modal Logic for Philosophers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2013.

  12. Gentzen, G., Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen, I and II, Mathematische Zeitschrift 39: 176–210, 405–431, 1934. Translated as “Investigations into Logical Deduction” parts I and II, and published in American Philosophical Quarterly 1: 288–306, 1964, and 2: 204–218, 1965, respectively. The full article was reprinted in M. E. Szabo (ed.), The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, pp. 68–131.

  13. Geuvers, H., and I. Loeb, From deduction graphs to proof nets: Boxes and sharing in the graphical presentation of deductions, in R. Královič and P. Urzyczyn (eds.), MFCS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4162, Springer, 2006, pp. 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/11821069_4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Geuvers, H., and I. Loeb, Natural deduction via graphs: Formal definition and computation rules, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 17(03): 485–526, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129507006123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hawthorn, J., Natural deduction in normal modal logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31(2): 263–273, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093635420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hazen, A., Natural deduction and Hilbert’s \(\varepsilon \)-operator, Journal of Philosophical Logic. 16(4): 411–421, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00431186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hazen, A. P., and F. J. Pelletier, Gentzen and Jaśkowski natural deduction: Fundamentally similar but importantly different. Studia Logica 102(6): 1103–1142, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-014-9564-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hughes, G. E., and M. J. Cresswell, A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge, London, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Humberstone, L., Philosophical Applications of Modal Logic. College Publications, London, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jacinto, B., and S. Read, General-elimination stability, Studia Logica 105(2): 361–405, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9692-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jaśkowski, S., On the rules of suppositions in formal logic. Studia Logica 1: 5–32, 1934. Reprinted in S. McCall, (ed.), Polish Logic 1920–1939, Oxford University Press, 1967, pp. 232–258.

  22. Kozhemiachenko, D., A simulation of natural deduction and Gentzen sequent calculus, Logic and Logical Philosophy 27(1): 67–84, 2017. https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2017.009.

  23. Lampert, F., Natural deduction for diagonal operators, in M. Zack and D. Schlimm, (eds.), Research in History and Philosophy of Mathematics: The CSHPM 2016 Annual Meeting in Calgary, Alberta, Cham: Birkhäuser, 2017, pp. 39–51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Leivant, D., Assumption classes in natural deduction. Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 25(1–2): 1–4, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.19790250102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Medeiros, M. P. N., A new S4 classical modal logic in natural deduction, Journal of Symbolic Logic 71(3): 799–809, 2006. https://doi.org/10.2178/jsl/1154698578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mints, G., A Short Introduction to Modal Logic. Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1992.

  27. Negri, S., Proof theory for modal logic, Philosophy Compass 6(8): 523–538, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00418.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Negri, S., and J. von Plato, Sequent calculus in natural deduction style, Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(4): 1803–1816, 2001. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Negri, S., and J. von Plato, Structural Proof Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NP 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Pelletier, F. J., A brief history of natural deduction. History and Philosophy of Logic 20(1): 1–31, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/014453499298165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pelletier, F. J., A history of natural deduction and elementary logic textbooks, in J. Woods and B. Brown, (eds.), Logical Consequence: Rival Approaches, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 105–138.

  32. Pelletier, F. J., and A. Hazen, Natural deduction, in D. Gabbay and J. Woods, (eds.), Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 11, Dordrecht, 2012, pp. 341–414.

  33. Prawitz, D., Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study. Almqvist and Wicksell, Stockholm, 1965.

  34. Quispe-Cruz, M., E. H. Haeusler, and L. Gordeev, Proof graphs for minimal implicational logic, in M. Ayala-Rincón, E. Bonelli, and I. Mackie, (eds.), Proceedings 9th International Workshop on Developments in Computational Models, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 26 August 2013, vol. 144 of Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Open Publishing Association, 2014, pp. 16–29. https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.144.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Raggio, A., Gentzen’s Hauptsatz for the systems NI and NK, Logique Et Analyse 8: 91–100, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Read, S., Harmony and modality, in C. Dégremont, L. Keiff, and H. Rückert, (eds.), On Dialogues, Logics and other Strange Things, Kings College Publications, 2008, pp. 285–303.

  37. Read, S., General-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39(5): 557–576, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9133-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Restall, G., An Introduction to Substructural Logics. Routledge, London, 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Restall, G., Normal proofs, cut free derivations and structural rules. Studia Logica 102(6): 1143–1166, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-014-9598-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rogerson, S., Natural deduction and Curry’s paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36(2): 155–179, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-006-9032-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schroeder-Heister, P., A natural extension of natural deduction. Journal of Symbolic Logic 49(4): 1284–1300, 1984. https://doi.org/10.2307/2274279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Siemens, D. F. Jr., Fitch-style rules for many modal logics, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 18(4): 631–636, October 1977. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093888133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Slaney, J., A general logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68(1): 74–88, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409012340183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Standefer, S., Trees for E. Logic Journal of the IGPL 26(3): 300–315, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzy003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thomason, R. H., A decision procedure for Fitch’s propositional calculus. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 8(1–2): 101–117, 1967. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093956248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Thomason, R. H., A Fitch-style formulation of conditional logic. Logique Et Analyse 52: 397–412, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  47. van Benthem, J., Modal Logic for Open Minds. CSLI Publications, 2010.

  48. van Dalen, D., Logic and Structure. Springer, London, 5th edition, 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. von Plato, J., A problem of normal form in natural deduction. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 46(1): 121–124, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3870(200001)46:1<121::AID-MALQ121>3.0.CO;2-A.

  50. von Plato, J., Normal derivability in modal logic. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 51(6): 632–638, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.200410054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. von Plato, J., From Gentzen to Jaskowski and back: Algorithmic translation of derivations between the two main systems of natural deduction. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 46(1/2): 65–73, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.46.1.2.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. von Plato, J., and G. Gentzen, Gentzen’s proof of normalization for natural deduction. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14(2): 240–257, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2178/bsl/1208442829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wisdom, W. A., Possibility-elimination in natural deduction. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 5(4): 295–298, 1964. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093957978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Greg Restall, Allen Hazen, Rohan French, Fabio Lampert, and the members of the Melbourne Logic Seminar for feedback on this work. I am grateful to two anonymous referees for their detailed, constructive reports, which significantly improved the presentation of this paper and helped me to correct some errors. I owe a special thanks to Valeria de Paiva, Luiz Carlos Pereira, and Edward Hermann Haeusler, whose short course on tree-style natural deduction at NASSLLI 2016 motivated this research. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council, Discovery Grant DP150103801.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shawn Standefer.

Additional information

Presented by Andrzej Indrzejczak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Standefer, S. Translations Between Gentzen–Prawitz and Jaśkowski–Fitch Natural Deduction Proofs. Stud Logica 107, 1103–1134 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-018-9828-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-018-9828-2

Keywords

Navigation