Witness theory for classical logic

(Inferential systems)

Adrian Rezuş
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2017

i

c 2017 Adrian Rezuş [text]

c 2017 équivalences [(pdf)LATEX ebook]

typeset by (pdf)LATEX – April 16, 2017

This note is a detailed technical comment on Rezuş (2017), §7 meant to establish
the relation between the equational theory λ∂p – loc. cit., §7.4 – and the λγ-
calculi of Rezuş (1990, 1991, 1993). The text is, essentially, self-contained.
§1 The calculus λ∂p and its subsystems. The calculus λ∂p – a proper extension
of the pure (extensional) λ-calculus λ – is the ‘type-free’ counterpart of a witness
theory for classical propositional logic – based on falsum f, material implication
[C] and negation [N], as primitives –, suggested by and based on work done by
Jan Lukasiewicz and his student Stanislaw Jaśkowski (on natural deduction)
during the early nineteen twenties. Cf. Rezuş (2017). For a larger historical
context, see also Rezuş (2009, rev. 2017). On the other hand, λγ – also a
proper extension of pure λ – is the ‘type-free’ counterpart of a witness theory
for classical propositional logic, based on falsum and material implication alone,
with negation defined inferentially, à la Peirce (1884). The latter (due to the
present author: work done during the late seventies and the early eighties) goes
back to much older findings due to Andreı̆ Nikolaevič Kolmogorov (1925) and
Valeriı̆ Ivanovič Glivenko (1928, 1929) in connection with intuitionistic logic.
Cf. also Prawitz (1965) and Rezuş (1990, 1991, 1993).1
In guise of a summary, in §1.1 we revisit Rezuş (2017), §7.4, with full
proofs. An (infinite) iteration similar to one presented in Rezuş (2017), §7.5 is
discussed in §1.2. In §1.3, we show that λγ is a subsystem of λ∂p [notation:
λγ  λ∂p]. Some variants and neighbours of λγ are taken into account in §2.
Finally, §3 is devoted to the corresponding ‘typed’ systems, while §4 mentions
also some work related to λγ done by some other people during the 1990’s.2
Recall first that, in Rezuş (2017), we had:
(∂ ) λ  λ∂  λ∂pβ  λ∂p  λπ.
where T1  T2 means that T1 is a subsystem of T2 , λ is the pure (exten-
sional) λ-calculus and λπ is the (extensional) λ-calculus with ‘surjective pair-
ing’. To make things self-contained, λ∂p extends the pure λ-calculus λ – based
on the usual [(βλ)-(ηλ)]-conditions – with a monadic abstractor ∂, a binary
‘cut’-operator ?, and pairs π (viz. with terms of the form: ∂z.e, c?a and
≺a,b, resp.), satisfying (β∂), (η∂) and (βp), (ηp) together with the expected
monotony-conditions for the new operations. Formally, λ∂p consists of the
following (equational) ‘postulates’:

(βλ) ` (λx.b[x]) . a = b[x:=a],

1 Everywhere here, ‘witness theory’ is to be taken, more or less, in the sense of the so-called
Curry-Howard correspondence (Haskell B. Curry, circa 1934, William A. Howard 1969). On
the historical side, the label is rather a misnomer, since the ‘correspondence’ has been vastly
anticipated by Alfred Tarski (1925) – somewhat avant la lettre, indeed, cf. Rezuş (1982, 1990)
–, Saunders MacLane (PhD Dissertation, Göttingen 1934), Gerhard Gentzen (circa 1938) –
cf. von Plato (2017), page 55 –, Carew A. Meredith (during the early 1950’s), Dag Prawitz
(1965), Hans Läuchli (1965), Nicolaas G. de Bruijn (1967), etc. See also Sørensen & Urzyczyn
(2006) and Rezuş (2017).
2 In retrospect, none of them were, apparently, aware of [1] the (historical) connections with

early antecedents in logic nor with [2] the (technical) – otherwise rather obvious – relation of
their subject to λπ and to the closely related category theoretic lore dating of the seventies.
 (ηλ) ` λx.(c.x) = c (x not free in c),
(β∂) ` c ? (∂z.e[z]) = e[z:=c],
(η∂) ` ∂z.(z?a) = a (z not free in a),
(βp) ` ≺a,c ? f = c ? (f . a).
(ηp) ` ∂z.e[z] = λx.∂y.e[z:=≺x,y].

The subsystem λ∂ is just the fragment without primitive pairs (π) and thus
without (βp) and (ηp), while λ∂pβ is obtained from λ∂p by leaving out (ηp).
Putting λ∂ and λ∂pβ aside, we are going to insert, in what follows, two more
subsystems between the pure λ and λπ.3
For further reference, λπ extends the pure λ-calculus λ, with a ‘surjective
pairing’, i.e., with pairs (π) and projections (π j ) – term-forms ≺a,b := π(a,b),
and j(c) := π j (c), j := 1, 2, supposed to satisfy:

(βπ 1 ) ` 1(≺a,b) = a,
(βπ 2 ) ` 2(≺a,b) = b,
(ηπ) ` ≺1(c),2(c) = c.

§1.1 (∂ ) We show first λ∂p  λπ, in some detail. For convenience, we use a
notational shift for the pure part (λ) of λπ, by renaming \ ≡ λ and | ≡ ., so
that the pair [(\),(|)] will be said to satisfy (β\) and (η\), and so on, whereas
the corresponding calculus becomes \π with ‘pure’ part \.4
Define, in \π [≡ λπ]:

(df ↑) ↑(c) := \z.((c | 1(z)) | 2(z)),

(df ↓) ↓(f) := \x.\y.(f|≺x,y),

(df ∂) ∂z.e[z] := ↑(\z.e[z]),

(df ?) c ? a := ↓(a) | c,
R R
(df ) [x,y].c[x,y] := ∂z.c[x:=1(z),y:=2(z)], z fresh for c[x,y],

(df λ) λx.b[x] := ∂z.(2(z)?b[x:=1(z)]), z fresh for b[x],

(df .) c . a := ∂y.(≺a,y?c), y not free in a and c.

Remark. Note that

R R
(λ ) ` λx.b[x] ≡ (x,y).(y?b[x]), y not free in b[x].

Theorem. In \π [≡ λπ], one has:

(β↑) ` ↓(↑(a)) = a,
(η↑) ` ↑(↓(c)) = c,
3 In general, everywhere here, all inclusions are strict.
4 This notational artifice is just to save typography.

2
 (β∂) ` c ? (∂z.e[z]) = e[z:=c],
(η∂) ` ∂z.(z?a) = a (z not free in a),

(βλ) ` (λx.b[x]) . a = b[x:=a],

(ηλ) ` λx.(c.x) = c (x not free in c),

(βp) ` ≺a,c ? f = c ? (f . a),

(ηp) ` ∂z.e[z] = λx.∂y.e[z:=≺x,y],

(βλ∗ ) ` ≺a,c ? (λx.b[x]) = c?(b[x:=a]),

(ηλ∗ ) ` λx.∂y.(≺x,y ? c) = c (x, y not free in c),
R R
(β ) ` ≺a,b ? ( (x,y).c[x,y]) = c[x:=a,y:=b],
R R
(η ) ` (x,y).(≺x,y ? c) = c (x,y not free in c),
R R
( λ∂) ` (x,y).e[x,y] = λx.∂y.e[x,y],
R R
(∂ ) ` ∂z.e[z] = (x,y).e[z:=≺x,y].

Proof. One shows, successively: (β↑): by (β\), (η\) and (βπ j ) [j := 1, 2]; (η↑):
by (β\), (η\) and (ηπ j ); (β∂): by (β\) and (β ↑); (η∂): by (η\) and (η ↑); (βλ):
by (β∂), (η∂) and (βπ j ) [j := 1, 2]; (ηλ): (β∂), (η∂) and (ηπ j ) (βp): by (β∂)
and (df .); (ηp): by R(β∂), (ηπ) and (df λ); (βλ∗ ): by (βλ) ∗
R and (βp); (ηλ ) :
by
R (η∂) and (ηp); (β
R ): by (β∂) and (βπ
Rj ) [j := 1, 2]; (η ): by (η∂) and (ηπ);
( λ∂): by (β∂); (∂ ): from (ηp) and ( λ∂). 
Remark. The Theorem proves (∂ ). In fact, we have established, by the same
token, slightly more, viz.
∗
(+
R
∂ ) T  \π [≡ λπ], with T := λ∂p, ∂λ p, ∂ p,

where ∂λ∗ p and ∂ p are as defined in Rezuş (2017), but we had equational
R

equivalence (') for the three systems (loc.cit., §7.4), i.e. λ∂p ' ∂λ∗ p ' ∂ p.
R

§1.2 Iterations. In general, one can define

λ0 x.b := ∂x.b[x],
c .0 a := a ? c, and for n ≥ 0,
λn+1 x.b[x] := λn z.(b[x:=1(z)] .n 2(z)), z fresh for b[z],
c .n+1 a := λn y.(c .n ≺a,y),

whereupon one obtains the

Theorem. For any natural number n,

(βλn ) ` (λn x.b[x]) .n a = b[x:=a],

(ηλn ) ` λn x.(c .n x) = c (x not free in c),

3
Proof. One shows both conditions simultaneously, by induction on n. The basis
of the induction is the pair [(β∂),(η∂)]. 
Remark. The [(λ),(.)]-pair defined as above yields the usual pure ‘eastern’
λ-calculus, λ ≡ λ. , as shown. The reader may try to go west, in order to obtain
the ‘western’ variant λ/ , say, by defining, instead, a [(λ/ ),(/)]-pair:

(df λ/ ) λ/ y.a[y] := ∂z.(1(z)?a[y:=2(z)]), z fresh in a[y],

(df /) c / b := ∂x.(≺x,b?c), y not free in b and c.

An analogous ‘western’ iteration of the construction is also available.

Remark (Monoids and inversions, C-monoids). As is well-known, the exten-
sional pure λ-calculus (here: \ ≡ λ) is a monoid (under composition ◦, given by
a◦b := \z.(a|(b|z)), with z not free in a,b, and identity, defined by I := \z.z),
while \π [≡ λπ] – known as ‘extended λ-calculus’ in category theory – contains
also a [definable] inversion, i.e., a pair [(↑),(↓)] of singulary operations satisfying
(β↑) and (η↑) above. Altogether, this means that \π [≡ λπ] is a C-monoid,
in the sense of Lambek & Scott (1986). Explicitly, if \π in as above, one can
define cartesian pairs, by

(df P) [a,b] := \z.≺a|z,b|z,

whence, by lifting the projections j (j := 1, 2) to combinators 1̄ := \z.1(z), 2̄ :=

\z.2(z), one checks easily that \π [≡ λπ] is a cartesian monoid:

(βP1 ) 1̄ ◦ [a,b] := a,
(βP2 ) 2̄ ◦ [a,b] := b,
(ηP) [1̄ ◦ c, 2̄ ◦ c] := c,

and thus a C-monoid (because of the inversion). The equational equivalence

(‘extended λ-calculi’ ' C-monoids) is established in Lambek & Scott (1986).5
In view of the infinite iteration effect shown in the above – as well as in Rezuş
(2017), §7.5, on a slightly different route –, C-monoids share an infinitistic
feature with the ‘extended λ-calculi’, otherwise absent from CCC’s [cartesian
closed categories]: a C-monoid is an object that ‘contains itself’ in infinitely
many distinct ways, so to speak, a rather weird algebraic structure, indeed.
§1.3 We consider, next, subsystems of λ∂p. Define, in λ∂p,
5 Roughly speaking, a C-monoid (alternatively: a CCM, short for ‘cartesian closed monoid’)

is what we obtain by leaving out the ‘object’-part from a cartesian closed category (including
the terminal object thus), so a C-monoid is, essentially, an algebra of ‘arrows’ [hom’s]. Since
a category can be viewed as a decorated [‘typed’] monoid, a CCC is a just decorated CCM
with an additional arrow – !, say – supposed to satisfy the condition ` ! ◦ a = ! (in terms
of λ-calculus, one has ` !f := ↓(f◦2̄) = K.f = λx.f – x not free in f –, where K is the usual
combinator, so that ` !f ◦ a = !f ). C-monoids and weaker derivatives thereof, without (η ↑)
and (ηP), occur in connection with work on categorical models of the (‘type-free’) λ-calculus.

4
 (df τ ) τ (c) := λz.(c?z), where z iz not free in c,
(df µ) µ(a,b) := λz.((b.(z.a)), where z is not free in a, b,
(df γ) γz.e[z] := ∂z.e[z:=τ (z)].
With the usual (pure λ-calculus) shorthand notation a◦b := λz.(a.(b.z))
and <c> := λz.(z.c), where z is not free in a,b,c, we have, immediately:
(τ ) ` τ (c) . a = c ? a,
(µ) ` µ(a,b) = b ◦ <a>.
Lemma. (µτ ) `µ(a,τ (b)) = τ (≺a,b), for all a, b, in λ∂p.
Proof. Straightforward, using (βp). 
Theorem (λγ and λγτ ). Where c[a] ≡ c[x:=a], one has, in λ∂p,
(β̂γ) `γx.c[x.(γy.e[x,y])] = γz.c[e[x,y:=z]],
(ηγ) `γz.(z.a) = a, if z is not free in a,
(ζγ) `γz.e[z] = λx.γy.e[z:=µ(x,y)].
(τ γ) `τ (c) . γz.e[z] = e[z:=τ (c)].
Proof. The first two conditions are obtained by easy calculations. For (ζγ), use
(ηp) and the (µτ )-lemma, while (τ γ) follows from (τ ) and (β∂). 
Let now λγ be the extension of pure λ-calculus λ with a new primitive
(monadic) γ-abstractor – and terms γz.e –, satisfying the conditions (β̂γ), (ηγ),
(ζγ) above, as well as monotony for γ, and λγτ be the extension of λγ with a
new primitive τ – and terms τ (c) – satisfying also the condition (τ γ) above, as
well as monotony for τ .
So we have, this time:
(γ ) λ  λγ  λγτ  λ∂p  λπ.
Here, λγ is the decoration-free (‘type-free’) counterpart of the basic λγ-
calculus of Rezuş (1990, 1991, 1993).6
§2 Variants and subsystems of λγ. A few remarks on variants, subsystems and
neighbours might be useful.
§2.1 Note first that the ‘full diagonalisation’ condition (β̂γ) – holding ‘at any
depth’, so to speak – admits of an analysis into a ‘surface diagonalisation’ con-
dition (β̄γ) and a quasi-monotony rule ([ξ]γ), where
(β̄γ) ` γx.(x.(γy.e[x,y])) = γz.e[x,y:=z],
([ξ]γ) ` γz.e1 = γz.e2 ⇒ ` γz.(f.e1 ) = γz.(f.e2 ).
§2.2 If we leave out the ‘infinitistic’ condition (ζγ), the corresponding subsystem
– λγ G , say [with G short for ‘Glivenko’] – is already contained in the pure λ-
calculus, λ. To see this, set γz.e[x] := λx.e[x:=<x>] (sic).7
6 The full system of Rezuş (1990) amounts to a ‘typed’ variant of λγΛ, with the additional

primitive [(Λ)-(I)]-pair, while Rezuş (1991, 1993) considered also an ‘typed’ extension λγπΛ,
with primitive pairs, projections and ‘surjectivity of pairing’. For the [(Λ)-(I)]-pair, see Rezuş
(1990, 1991, 1993, 2017).
7 This is, actually, what we get while reading Glivenko (1928, 1929) in terms of proofs.

5
§2.3 On the other hand, from (ζγ), we get, by (βλ),

(ζβ γ) ` γz.e[z] . a = γz.e[z:=µ(a,z)].

It is an easy exercise in pure λ-calculus – more or less, λ-folklore of the early

sixties, if not older – to establish the fact that the system with (βλ) only – no
(ηλ) thus – and (β̂γ), (ηγ), (ζβ γ) – λβ γ K , say [with K short for ‘Kolmogorov’]
– is already contained in pure λ.
Indeed, where <a,b> := λz.(z.a.b) [with z not free in a, b] are the usual
Frege-Church pairs, and <c> is as above, define, in λ,

(df λK ) λK x.b[x] := <λx.b[x]>,

(df .K ) c .K a := λy.(c . <a,y>),
(df τ K ) τ K (c) := <<a>> [sic], with mutatis mutandis,
(df µK ) µK (a,b) := λK z.(b.K (z.K a)), z not free in a,b.

Then the [(λK ),(.K )]-pair satisfies, mutatis mutandis, (βλK ) – no (ηλK ),
however –, and we have an analogous (µτ )-lemma, reading, this time:
Lemma. (µK τ K ) `µK (a,τ K (b)) = τ K (<a,b>), for all a, b, in pure λ.
Proof. We have, first, an analogue [sic] of (βp), viz.
(p) ` (c .K a) . b = c . <a,b>,
by (βλ). Next, after unpacking the definitions, we get
(1) ` τ K (c) . <a,b> = (a . c) . b
by (βλ), while
(2) ` τ K (c) .K a = a . c,
follows from (1) and (ηλ). The Lemma follows from (2) and (p) above. 
Finally, we have the expected
Theorem (The λβ γ K -calculus). In pure λ, the conditions (λβ), (β̂γ), (ηγ),
and (ζβ γ) hold for λ, ., γ and µ, resp. replaced by λK , .K , γ K and µK , resp.
Proof. Straightforward calculations. For (ζβ γ), use the (µK τ K )-lemma. 
In λ, we have the corresponding τ K -extension of λβ γ K , as well. As already
mentioned earlier, (βη) fails for the ‘Kolmogorov’-cognates. The reader may
want to notice the fact that the simulation above reflects, ultimately, the essence
of the so-called ‘Kolmogorov translation’ of classical propositional logic into a
fragment of intuitionistic logic. See Rezuş (1991, 1993) [Appendix 3], for a
discussion of the original translation.
§2.4 On a different route, the γ-segment of λγ admits of a ‘linear decomposi-
tion’, so to speak.8 Define, in λγ,

(df ε) εz.a[z] := γz.(z.a[z]),

(df $) $(e) := γz.e, where z is not free in e.

We have, immediately:
8 Mutatis mutandis, this holds for the pairs [(λ),(.)]and [(∂),(?)], as well.

6
 (γε$) ` γz.e[z] = εz.$(e[z]), and a

Lemma (λε$). In λγ,

(β̂εε) ` εz.c[x.εy.a[x,y]] = εz.c[z.a[x,y:=z],

(ηε) ` εz.a = a, if z is not free in a,
(εε) ` εx.εy.a[x,y] = εz.a[x,y:=z]
(ζε) ` εz.a[z] = λx.εy.(a[z:=µ(x,y)].x), and
(β̂ε$) ` εz.c[z.$(e[z])] = εz.c[e[z]],
(ζ$) ` $(e) = λx.$(e), if x is not free in e,
(ε$) ` εz.$(z.a[z]) = εz.a[z].

Proof. Easy calculations. [Note that (εε) follows from ε-$ conditions.] 
We can safely leave to the reader the task of formulating the alternative
version, λε$ say, (equationally) equivalent to λγ, based on {λ, ., ε, $} as
primitives.9
§2.5 At this point, the reader may want to notice that the analogous monadic
abstractor z.a[z], say, defined, in λ∂p, by z.a[z] := ∂z.(z?a[z]), has a more
transparent equational behaviour, viz., in λ∂p,

(β) ` c ? z.a[z] = c ? a[z:=c],

(η) ` z.a = a, if z is not free in a,
() ` x.y.a[x,y] = z.a[x,y:=z],
(ζ) ` z.a[z] = λx.y.(a[z:=≺x,y].x),

while, with $(e) := ∂z.e [≡ γz.e], z not free in e, one has also:

(β$) ` c ? $(e) = e,
($) ` z.$(z?a[z]) = z.a[z], and
(∂$) `∂z.e[z] = z.$(e[z]),

so that the [(∂),(?)]-segment of λ∂ admits of analogous ‘linear decomposition’ in

terms of {, $ , ?}. Indeed, in view of (∂$), one can show that λ∂ is equivalent
to an equational theory – λ$, say –, based on the [(λ),(.)]-pair – satisfying the
usual conditions (βλ) and (βη) – and a primitive triple [(),($),(?)], satisfying
(β), (η), (β$) and ($). [Here, like for (εε) above, () follows from the
remaining -$-conditions.]
§3 ‘Typed’ systems [‘inferential witness theories’]. For the decorated [‘typed’]
systems λγ[f,C] and λγτ [f,N,C], the art déco [‘typing’] is as expected, viz.,
ignoring context parametrisations:
9 In particular, if z̄ , 0 < j < n + 1, n > 0, are all the occurences of the free variable z in
j
a[z], then, in view of (εε), ` εz.a[z] = εz̄ 1 ....εz̄ n .a[z̄ 1 ,...,z̄ n ], i.e., ε can be replaced by stricty
linear uses of it, ε̄z.a[z], where z occurs in a[z] exactly once. The ε-operator goes back to H.
B. Curry (circa 1950). See Rezuş (1991, 1993) for details.

7
 [γ] ` γz:Cαf.e[z] : α, if [z : Cαf] ` e[z] : f,
[τ ] ` τ (c) : Cαf, if ` c : Nα,
so τ is, here, a kind of translation-device from a primitive negation Nα to an
‘inferential’ negation, defined à la Peirce (1884) in terms of (material) impli-
cation [C] and falsum f, while the decorated γ is just the inferential version of
reductio ad absurdum, so to speak.
Recall that, in λ∂p,  is [‘corresponds to’] consequentia mirabilis, also known
as the ‘Law of Clavius’. From the above, it becomes also clear that ε, defined
as above, is [‘corresponds to’] the inferential version of consequentia mirabilis,
while $ is [‘corresponds to’] the usual ex falso rule (since we have ` $(e) =
∂z.e, where z is not free in e, as well), i.e.
[ε] ` εz:Cαf.a[z] : α, if [z : Cαf] ` a[z] : α,
[$] ` $α (e) : α, if ` e : f.
Incidentally, the ‘witness operator’ corresponding to the Rule of Peirce, i.e.,
Cαβ ` α ⇒ ` α, can be defined, in λγ, by:
(df ℘) ` ℘z:Cαβ.a[z] := εz:Cαf.a[z:=λx:α.$β (z.x),
provided [z:Cαβ] ` a[z] : α, whence a ‘witness’ for the Law of Peirce would
amount to a combinator (‘typed’ closed λγ-term):
` ℘α,β := λy:CCαβα.εz:Cαf.(y.(λx:α.$β (z.x)) : CCCαβαα.
The extensions of the above to (propositional or first- resp. second-order)
quantifiers are straightforward. See, mutatis mutandis, Rezuş (1990, 1991, 1993,
2017), for details.
§4 Related work. Niels Jakob Rehof and Morten Heine Sørensen (1994) studied
several variants of λγ – called λ∆ -calculi10 –, as well as ‘typed’ versions thereof,
in connection with the the the calculus of control (and abort) of Matthias
Felleisen (PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington IN 1987); cf. also
Rezuş (1991, 1993). Yet another variant of λγ – called λµ-calculus –, with
a more involved syntax (two sorts of variables, two sorts of terms, additional
term-replacement operations etc.), has been proposed and studied by Michel
Parigot (Paris 7) since about 1991–1992; cf., e.g., Parigot (1997) and Sørensen
& Urzyczyn (2006). In view of computer science applications, the subject has
been also addressed, on several occasions, during the 1990’s, by Chetan R.
Murthy (PhD Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca NY) and by many others
since. For details on C-monoids and categorical models of the λ-calculus – a
subject originated with Joachim Lambek and Dana S. Scott during the early
1970’s –, see, e.g., the PhD Dissertations of Karst Koymans (Utrecht 1984) and
Pierre-Louis Curien (Paris 7, 1985), as well as the work of Adam Obtulowicz
(Warsaw 1979 and later), Takanori Adachi (Tokyo 1982, 1983) and Hirofumi
Yokouchi (Tokyo 1983), cited in the monograph of Lambek & Scott (1986) and
in the theses of Koymans (1984) and Curien (1985).
10 Their ∆z.e is just γz.e, in the present syntax.

8
References
[1] Matthias Felleisen 1987 The Calculi of λv -CS Conversion, A Syntactic Theory of
Control and State in Imperative Higher Order Programming Languages, PhD
Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington IN 1987. (Indiana University, Depart-
ment of Computer Science, Bloomington IN, Technical Report 226, August 1987.)
[2] Valeriı̆ Ivanovič Glivenko (1928) Sur la logique de M. Brouwer, Académie Royale de
Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences (5) 14, 1928, pp. 225–228.
[3] Valeriı̆ Ivanovič Glivenko (1929) Sur quelques points de la logique de M. Brouwer,
Académie Royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences (5) 15, 1929,
pp. 183–188. (English translation by A. Rocha, in: Paolo Mancosu From Brouwer to
Hilbert, The debate on the foundations of mathematics in the 1920s, Oxford University
Press, New York etc. 1998, pp. 301–305.)
[4] Andreı̆ Nikolaevič Kolmogorov (1925) O principe ‘tertium non datur’ [On the principle
of excluded middle] [Russian], Matematičeskiı̆ Sbornik 32 (4), 1924–1925, pp. 646–
667. (Paper dated: Moskow, September 30, 1925. See also J. van Heijenoort (ed.), From
Frege to Gödel, A Source Book in Mathematical Logic 1879–1931, Harvard
UP, Cambridge Mass., 1967, 1970R , pp. 414–437, containing an English translation by
Jean van Heijenoort, pp. 416–437, with an introduction by Hao Wang, pp. 414–416.)
[5] Joachim Lambek, and Phil J. Scott (1986) Introduction to Higher Order Categor-
ical Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, etc. 1986 [Cambridge Studies
in Advanced Mathematics 7].
[6] Michel Parigot (1997) Strong normalization for second order classical natural deduction,
The Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (4), 1997, pp. 1461–1479.
[7] Jan von Plato (2017) Saved from the Cellar, Gerhard Getntzen Shorthand Notes on
Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Springer 2017 [isbn: 978-3-319-42120-9]
[Sources and Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences].
[8] Dag Prawitz (1965) Natural Deduction, A Proof-Theoretical Study, Almqvist & Wik-
sell, Uppsala [Stockholm-Gothenburg-Uppsala] 1965 [Acta Universitatis Stockholmien-
sis: Stockholm Studies in Philosophy 3]. Reprint [with corrections]: Dover Publications,
Mineola NY 2006 [Dover Books in Mathematics]. (Originally PhD Dissertation, Univer-
sity of Stockholm 1965.)
[9] Niels Jakob Rehof, and Morten Heine Sørensen (1994) The λ∆ -calculus, in: M. Hagiya
and J. Mitchell (eds.), Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software, pp. 516–542,
Springer Verlag, Berlin etc. 1994 [Lecture Notes in Computer Science 789].
[10] Adrian Rezuş (1982) On a theorem of Tarski, Libertas Mathematica [Arlington TX]
2, 1982, pp. 62–95. (Work of 1979–1980.)
[11] Adrian Rezuş (1990) Classical Proofs. λ-calculus Methods in Elementary Proof The-
ory, [Draft of a monograph, based on previous lecture notes] Nijmegen [August 5] 1990.
(Available online @ www.equivalences.org.)
[12] Adrian Rezuş (1991, 1993) Beyond BHK, Nijmegen, December 1, 1991. (A slightly
revised version [July 20, 1993, updated bibliographically in 2000] appears online @
www.equivalences.org. Introduction and extended abstract printed separately as Rezuş
(1993a).)
[13] Adrian Rezuş (1993a) Beyond BHK (extended abstract), in: Henk Barendregt, Marc
Bezem, and Jan Willem Klop (eds.), Dirk van Dalen Festschrift, University of
Utrecht, Utrecht 1993, pp. 114–120 [Quaestiones Infinitae 5. Publications of the De-
partment of Philosophy, University of Utrecht].
[14] Adrian Rezuş (2009) An Ancient Logic (Chrysippus and His Modern Readers I),
LAP – Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken 2017 [isbn: 978-3-330-01661-3].
(Formerly: Preprint équivalences, Nijmegen 2009, revised in 2016.)
[15] Adrian Rezuş (2010) Tarski’s claim: thirty years later, Nijmegen, October 1, 2010.
(Preprint available online @ www.equivalences.org.)

9
[16] Adrian Rezuş (2017) Lukasiewicz, Jaśkowski and Natural Deduction, Nijmegen,
April 14, 2017 [to appear].
[17] Morten Heine Sørensen, and Pawel Urzyczyn (2006) Lectures on the Curry-Howard
Isomorphism, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam etc., 2006 [Studies in Logic and the Foun-
dations of Mathematics 149].

10

c 2017 Adrian Rezuş (Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

c 2017 équivalences (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) [(pdf)LATEX]

typeset by romanianTEX c 1994–2001 Adrian Rezuş

first draft: April 10, 2017
last revised: April 16, 2017 – printed in the netherlands