# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJun 8th 2017
• (edited Jun 8th 2017)

The cut rule for linear logic used to be stated as

If $\Gamma \vdash A$ and $A \vdash \Delta$, then $\Gamma \vdash \Delta$.

I don’t think this is general enough, so I corrected it to

If $\Gamma \vdash A, \Phi$ and $\Psi,A \vdash \Delta$, then $\Psi,\Gamma \vdash \Delta,\Phi$.

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJun 8th 2017

No objection, but I guess it would depend on the precise rules. In MLL which has duals, if we have rules which allow us to derive

$\frac{\Gamma \vdash \Sigma,\Phi}{\Gamma, \Phi^\ast \vdash \Sigma}, \qquad \frac{\Psi, \Sigma \vdash \Delta}{\Psi \vdash \Delta, \Sigma^\ast}$

where $\Phi^\ast$ is the list of duals of formulas of $\Phi$, and $A^{\ast\ast} = A$, I thought we would be able to derive your more general cut rule from the more specific cut rule:

$\array{ \arrayopts{\rowlines{solid}} \Gamma \vdash A, \Phi\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \Psi, A \vdash \Delta \\ \Gamma, \Phi^\ast \vdash A \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; A \vdash \Psi^\ast, \Delta \\ \Gamma, \Phi^\ast \vdash \Psi^\ast, \Delta \\ \Psi, \Gamma \vdash \Delta, \Phi }$
• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJun 8th 2017

Yes, you’re right. But I think it’s better to formulate the rule in a way that remains correct in fragments without involutive negation.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJun 8th 2017

Understood (and agreed); I was just explaining the likely reason the original form was the way it was (I’m guessing I wrote that).

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeSep 10th 2018

Confirm that the game semantics presented here is the same as Blass's. (I still haven't actually read Blass 1992, yet, but I read a 1994 paper by Blass that summarizes the 1992 semantics.)

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentTimeMar 23rd 2019

Added differential linear logic to variants, included a reference to the paper introducing differential categories.

1. Link to game semantics article

Ammar Husain

2. Copycat example.

Ammar Husain

3. Caires, Pfenning

Ammar Husain

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeNov 12th 2019

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentTimeFeb 15th 2020

• CommentRowNumber12.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeFeb 17th 2020

Mention Mike's antithesis interpretation.

• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

Thanks for adding that, Toby! I added a redirect for “antithesis interpretation” to this page, since you created a link to that from join. We could eventually have a separate page about it, but for now this is the best target of such a link.

4. I think the use of ’categorial semantics’, when the section talks about a ’categorical semantics’ was a typo. If it isn’t, it might be good to explain that there are schools of thought that prefer the adjective ’categorial’ to ’categorical’, and strongly so. Personally, I prefer ’categorical’, but some of my best friends insist on ’categorial’.

Valeria de Paiva

• CommentRowNumber15.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 18th 2021
• (edited Jan 18th 2021)

I do expect it was a typo. But it might still be good to explain issues with the terminology, either on this page or on a dedicated page!

I feel that most usage of “categorical” in mathematics is, or originates in, a careless search for terminology that is really looking for “category theoretic”. Compare the analogous clear difference between “numerical” and “number theoretic”.

• CommentRowNumber16.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJan 25th 2021

It almost surely is not a typo – it’s Toby’s preferred word.

• CommentRowNumber17.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTimeJan 26th 2021
• (edited Jan 26th 2021)

Searching MathSciNet, “categorical” is more popular than “categorial” by an order of 20 (11822 vs 591 matches).

Furthermore, “categorial” matches mostly philosophy, logic, and computer science, with almost no actual category theory papers.

• CommentRowNumber18.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 26th 2021
• (edited Jan 26th 2021)

Somebody please just add a discussion of terminology, conventions and issues to this entry – or better to categorical logic and then link to it from here.

It sure must look like typos to any outside reader: There was 16 “categorical” vs 4 “categorial” before Valeria’s latest edit, some next to each other, notably there was

1. Categorial semantics. We discuss the categorical semantics…

I see from the edit history that the “categorial”s are Toby’s intentional ideosyncrasy. As per #15 I probably agree with the logic behind this, but if mathematical terminology were a matter of logic, most of it would be much different. The goal of an entry must be to communicate with the reader, not to irritate them.

But if we had a decent section “On terminology” at categorical logic we could link to this from the very top of all relevant pages – say: “On the terminology of ’categori(c)al’ in the following see at categorical logic. ” – and then the issue would be dealt with.

• CommentRowNumber19.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 27th 2021

So I went ahead and wrote a comment on terminology myself: here (in a new section of the entry categorical semantics).

Maybe best to have any further discussion of this point there, in the thread for the entry on categorical semantics.

• CommentRowNumber20.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTimeJan 27th 2021
• (edited Jan 27th 2021)

Re #15: dictionaries list two different meanings for “categorical”, for example, Wiktionary says

1. Absolute; having no exception.

2. Of, pertaining to, or using a category or categories.

Clearly, the second meaning makes “categorical” perfectly appropriate here. I do not understand how or why the interpretation that “categorical” necessarily refers to 1 above, whereas “categorial” means 2, came to be.

• CommentRowNumber21.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJan 28th 2021

Re #20: I don’t think it’s that. I think Toby wants “categorial” to avoid a conflict with the model theorists’ usage of the word “categorical”. My own opinion is that we don’t need such deferment.