gdel s completeness theorem ( for first - order classical logic ) is one of the most important theorems in logic .
it is concerned with a duality ( in a naive sense ) between proofs and models : for every proposition @xmath0 ,    _ either@xmath4or@xmath5 .
_    here @xmath1 ranges over the set of proofs , @xmath2 over the class of models , and @xmath6 reads `` @xmath1 is a proof of @xmath0 . ''
one can imagine a debate on a general proposition @xmath0 , where player tries to justify @xmath0 by giving a proof and opponent tries to refute it by giving a countermodel .
the completeness theorem states that exactly one of them wins .
actually , the theorem gives us far more insights than stated .
-12 pt**finite proofs vs infinite models:**a very crucial point is that proofs are always finite , while models can be of arbitrary cardinality .
completeness thus implies compactness and lwenheim - skolem theorems , leading to constructions of various nonstandard models . 2 .
-12 pt**nondeterministic principles : * * proof of gdel s completeness theorem relies on a strong nondeterministic principle such as knig s or zorn s lemma , in contrast to the trivial completeness theorem with respect to the class of boolean algebras .
-12 pt**matching of two inductions:**__provability _ _ is defined by induction on proofs , while _ truth _ by induction on formulas .
the two inductions are somehow ascribed to the essence of syntax and semantics , respectively , and the completeness theorem states that they do match .    unlike the real debate
, however , there is no interaction between proofs and models in gdel s theorem . a more interactive account of completeness is given by girard s _ ludics _ ( @xcite ; see @xcite for good expositions ) .
ludics is a variant of game semantics , which has the following prominent features .    1
.   -12 pt**monism : * *  proofs and models are not distinguished by their ontological status , but by their structural properties .
the common objects are called _
designs_. 2 .
-12 pt**existentialism : * *  _ behaviours _
( semantic types ) are built from designs , in contrast to the ordinary game semantics ( hyland - ong @xcite ) where one begins with the definition of arenas ( types ) and then proceeds to strategies ( proofs ) .
-12 pt**normalization as interaction : * *  designs ( hence proofs and models ) interact together via normalization .
it induces an _ orthogonality relation _ between designs in such a way that @xmath7 holds if the normalization of @xmath1 applied to @xmath2 converges .
a behaviour @xmath0 is defined to be a set of designs which is equivalent to its biorthogonal ( @xmath8 ) .    in this
setting , girard shows a completeness theorem for proofs @xcite , which roughly claims that any `` winning '' design in a behaviour is a proof of it . in view of the interactive definition of behaviour
, it can be rephrased as follows : for every ( logical ) behaviour @xmath0 and every ( proof - like ) design @xmath1 ,    _ either@xmath6or@xmath9 and @xmath2 defeats @xmath1 ) .
_    here , `` @xmath10 '' means @xmath11 , and `` @xmath2 defeats @xmath1 '' means @xmath12 .
hence the right disjunct is equivalent to @xmath13 .
namely , @xmath14 if and only if @xmath6 , that is a typical full completeness statement .
notice that @xmath10 no more entails absolute unprovability of @xmath0 ( it is rather relativized to each @xmath1 ) , and there is a real interaction between proofs and models .    actually , girard s original ludics is so limited that it corresponds to a polarized fragment of multiplicative additive linear logic , which is too weak to be a stand - alone logical system . as a consequence
, one does not really observe an opposition between finite proofs and infinite models , since one can always assume that the countermodel @xmath2 is finite ( related to the finite model property for @xmath15 @xcite ) . indeed , proving the above completeness is easy once _ internal completeness _ ( a form of completeness which does not refer to any proof system @xcite ) for each logical connective has been established .    in this paper , we employ a term syntax for designs introduced in @xcite , and extend girard s ludics with duplication ( contraction ) and its dual : universal nondeterminism ( see @xcite and references therein ) .
although our term approach disregards some interesting locativity - related phenomena ( normalization as merging of orders and different sorts of tensors @xcite ) , our calculus is easier to manipulate and closer to the tradition of @xmath16 , @xmath17 , @xmath18 , @xmath19-calculi and other more recent syntaxes for focalized classical logic ( @xcite ) .
our resulting framework is as strong as a polarized fragment of linear logic with exponentials ( @xcite ; see also @xcite ) , which is in turn as strong as a constructive version of classical propositional logic .
we then prove the completeness theorem above in this extended setting . here
, universal nondeterminism is needed on the model side to well interact with duplicative designs on the proof side .
this is comparable to the need of  noninnocent " ( and sometimes even nondeterministic ) opponents to have full completeness with respect to deterministic , but nonlinear player s strategies . unlike before
, we can not anymore assume the finiteness of models , since they are not sufficient to refute infinite proof attempts .
as a result , our proof is nontrivial , even after the internal completeness theorem has been proved .
indeed , our proof exhibits a striking similarity with schtte s proof of gdel s completeness theorem @xcite .
given a ( proof - like ) design @xmath1 which is not a proof of @xmath0 , we explicitly construct a countermodel @xmath2 in @xmath20 which defeats @xmath1 , essentially using knig s lemma .
soundness is proved by induction on proofs , while completeness is by induction on types .
thus our theorem gives matching of two inductions .
finally , it implies an analogue of lwenheim - skolem theorem , ( and also the finite model property for the linear fragment ) , which well illustrates the opposition between finite proofs and infinite models with arbitrary cardinality .    in game semantics ,
one finds a number of similar full completeness results .
however , the connection with gdel s completeness seems less conspicuous than ours .
typically , innocent strategies in hyland - ong games most naturally correspond to _ bhm trees _ , which can be _ infinite _ ( @xcite ) .
thus , in contrast to our result , one has to impose finiteness / compactness on strategies in an external way , in order to have a correspondence with _
finite _ @xmath16-terms .
although this is also the case in @xcite , we show that such a finiteness assumption is not needed in ludics : infinitary proof attempts are always defeated by infinitary models .
the paper is organized as follows . in section [ s - prelim ]
we describe the syntax of ( untyped ) designs ; in section [ s - behaviour ] we move to a typed setting and introduce behaviours ( semantic types ) . in section
[ s - full ] we introduce our proof system and prove completeness for proofs .
finally , section [ s - conclusion ] concludes the paper .
in this paper , we employ a process calculus notation for designs , inspired by the close relationship between ludics and linear @xmath19-calculus @xcite .
precisely , we extend the syntax introduced by the second author @xcite adding a ( universal ) nondeterministic choice operator @xmath21 .    although @xcite mainly deals with linear designs , its syntax is designed to deal with nonlinear ones without any difficulty . however , in order to obtain _ completeness _ , we also need to incorporate the dual of nonlinearity , that is _ universal nondeterminism _
@xcite . it is reminiscent of differential linear logic @xcite , which has nondeterministic sum as the dual of contraction ; the duality is essential for the separation property @xcite ( see also @xcite for separation of bhm trees ) .
a similar situation also arises in hyland - ong game semantics @xcite , where _ nonlinear _ strategies for player may contain a play in which opponent behaves _ noninnocently _ ; opponent s noninnocence is again essential for full completeness .
designs are built over a given _ signature _ @xmath22 , where @xmath23 is a set of _ names _ @xmath24 and @xmath25 is a function which assigns to each name @xmath26 its _ arity _ @xmath27 .
let @xmath28 be a countable set of variables @xmath29 .    over a fixed signature @xmath30 , a _ positive action
_ is @xmath31 with @xmath32 , and a _ negative action _ is @xmath33 where variables @xmath34 are distinct and @xmath35 .
we often abbreviate a sequence of variables @xmath36 by @xmath37 . in the sequel
, we always assume that an expression of the form @xmath38 stands for a negative action , @xmath39 and @xmath37 is a sequence consisting of @xmath40 distinct variables . if @xmath26 is a nullary name we simply write @xmath26 for the negative action on name @xmath26 .
[ designs ] for a fixed signature @xmath30 , the class of * positive designs * @xmath41 , that of * predesigns * @xmath42 , and that of * negative designs * @xmath43 are _ coinductively _ defined as follows : @xmath44 where :    1 .
@xmath45 ; 2 .
@xmath46 and the formal sum @xmath47 has @xmath48-many components @xmath49 ; 3 .
@xmath50 is built from a set @xmath51 of predesigns with @xmath52 an arbitrary index set .
we denote arbitrary designs by @xmath53 .
the set of * designs * , consisting of all positive , negative and predesigns , is denoted by @xmath54 .
any subterm @xmath55 of @xmath56 is equivalently called a _ subdesign _ of @xmath56 .
notice that designs are _ coinductively _ defined objects .
in particular , infinitary designs are included in our syntax , just as in the original ludics @xcite .
it is strictly necessary , since we want to express both proof attempts and countermodels as designs , both of which tend to be infinite .
informally , designs may be regarded as infinitary @xmath16-terms with _ named _ applications , _ named _ and _ superimposed _ abstractions and a _ universal nondeterministic _ choice operator @xmath21 .
more specifically , a predesign @xmath57 can be thought of as iterated application @xmath58 of an @xmath40-ary name @xmath32 . in the sequel
, we may abbreviate @xmath59 by @xmath60 . if @xmath26 is a nullary name we simply write @xmath61 .
on the other hand , a negative design of the form @xmath62 can be thought of as iterated abstraction @xmath63 of an @xmath40-ary name @xmath32 .
a family @xmath64 of abstractions indexed by @xmath23 is then superimposed to form a negative design @xmath47 .
since @xmath47 is built from a family indexed by @xmath23 , there can not be any overlapping of name in the sum .
each @xmath62 is called an ( additive ) * component*.    a predesign is called a * cut * if it is of the form @xmath65 .
otherwise , it is of the form @xmath66 and called a * head normal form*. as we shall see in detail in subsection [ normalization subsection ] , cuts have substantial computational significance in our setting : in fact a cut @xmath67 can be _ reduced _ to another design @xmath68 $ ] .
namely , when the application is of name @xmath69 , one picks up the component @xmath70 from the family @xmath64 .
notice that the arities of @xmath71 and @xmath72 always agree .
then , one applies a simultaneous  @xmath73-reduction " @xmath74 $ ] .
the _ head variable _ @xmath75 in an head normal form @xmath66 plays the same role as a pointer in a strategy does in hyland - ong games and an address ( or locus ) in girard s ludics . on the other hand , a variable @xmath75 occurring in a bracket as in @xmath76 @xmath77 , @xmath75
, @xmath78 does not correspond to a pointer nor address .
rather , it corresponds to an identity axiom ( initial sequent ) in sequent calculus , and for this reason is called an * identity*. if a negative design @xmath79 simply consists of a variable @xmath75 , then @xmath79 is itself an identity
.    the positive design @xmath80 denotes _ divergence _ ( or _ partiality _ ) of the computation , in the sense we will make more precise in the next subsection .
we also use @xmath80 to encode partial sums . given a set @xmath81 of negative actions with distinct names @xmath82 , we write @xmath83 to denote the negative design @xmath84 , where @xmath85 if @xmath86 , and @xmath87 otherwise .
we also use an informal notation @xmath88 to denote @xmath83 .
so far , the syntax we are describing is essentially the same as the one introduced in @xcite .
a novelty of this paper is the nondeterministic conjunction operator @xmath21 , which allows us to build a positive design @xmath50 from a set @xmath51 of predesigns with @xmath52 an arbitrary index set .
each @xmath89 is called a * conjunct * of @xmath1 .
we write @xmath90 ( * daimon * ) for the empty conjunction @xmath91 .
this design plays an essential role in ludics , since it is used to define the concept of orthogonality .
although @xmath90 is usually given as a primitive ( see @xcite ) , we have found it convenient and natural to identify ( or rather encode ) @xmath90 with the empty conjunction .
as we shall see , its computational meaning exactly corresponds to the usual one : @xmath90 marks the _ termination _ of a computation .
put in another way , our nondeterministic conjunction can be seen as a generalization of the termination mark .
a design @xmath56 may contain free and bound variables .
an occurrence of subterm @xmath62 _ binds _ the free variables @xmath37 in @xmath92 . variables which are not under the scope of the binder @xmath93 are _
free_. we denote by @xmath94 the set of free variables occurring in @xmath56 . as in @xmath16-calculus
, we would like to identify two designs which are _
@xmath95-equivalent _ up to renaming of bound variables .
but it is more subtle than usual , since we also would like to identify , @xmath96 with @xmath97 whenever @xmath98 and @xmath99 are @xmath95-equivalent . to enforce these requirements simultaneously and hereditarily
, we define an equivalence relation by coinduction .    by _ renaming _ we mean a function @xmath100 .
we write @xmath101 for the identity renaming , and @xmath102 $ ] for the renaming that agrees with @xmath103 except that @xmath102(x)=z$ ] .
the set of renamings is denoted by @xmath104 .
[ d - alpha ] a binary relation @xmath105 is called a * design equivalence * if for any @xmath106 such that @xmath107 , one of the following holds :    1 .
@xmath108 ; 2 .
@xmath109 , @xmath110 and we have : a.   for any @xmath111 there is @xmath112 such that @xmath113 , b.   for any @xmath112 there is @xmath111 such that @xmath113 ; 3 .
@xmath114 , @xmath115 and @xmath116 for every @xmath117 ; 4 .
@xmath118 , @xmath119 and @xmath120 ; 5 .
@xmath121 , @xmath122 and @xmath123 ) { \ ; \cr\ ; } ( q_a , \rho[\vec{z}_a/\vec{y}_a])$ ] for every @xmath32 and some vector @xmath124 of fresh variables .
we say that two designs @xmath56 and @xmath55 are _ equivalent _ if there is a design equivalence @xmath125 such that @xmath126 .
see @xcite for further details .
henceforth we _ always _ identify two designs @xmath56 and @xmath55 , and write @xmath127 by abuse of notation , if they are equivalent in the above sense .
the following lemma is a straightforward extension of lemma 2.6 of @xcite .
it makes it easier to prove equivalence of two designs ( just as the `` bisimulation up - to '' technique in concurrency theory makes it easier to prove bisimilarity of two processes ) .
[ l - equiv ] let @xmath125 be a binary relation on designs such that if @xmath128 then one of the following holds :    1 .
@xmath108 ; 2 .
@xmath109 , @xmath110 , and we have : 1 .   for any @xmath111 there is @xmath112 such that @xmath129 , 2 .   for any @xmath112 there is @xmath111 such that @xmath129 ; 3 .
@xmath114 , @xmath115 and @xmath130 for every @xmath117 ; 4 .
@xmath131 ; 5 .
@xmath132 , @xmath133 and @xmath134 for every @xmath32 .
if @xmath135 , then @xmath56 and @xmath55 are equivalent .    as a notational convention , a unary conjunction @xmath136 is simply written as @xmath98
this allows us to treat a predesign as a positive design .
we also write :    1 .
@xmath137 if @xmath1 is a conjunction and @xmath98 is a conjunct of @xmath1 ; 2 .
@xmath138 if _ either _ @xmath139 , _ or _ both @xmath1 and @xmath140 are conjunctions and for all @xmath141 , @xmath137 .
thus @xmath138 indicates that @xmath1 has more conjuncts than @xmath140 unless @xmath139 .
we also extend the conjunction operator to positive designs and abstractions as follows .
[ conj binary ]    1 .   as for positive designs ,
we set @xmath142 2 .   as for abstractions , negative designs of the form @xmath47 , observe that since we are working up to renaming of bound variables , it is no loss of generality to assume that in any pair @xmath47 , @xmath143 , one has @xmath144 for every @xmath145 .
we set : @xmath146    observe the following :    1 .
the set of positive designs forms a semilattice with respect to @xmath147 and @xmath148 .
2 .   @xmath149 for any positive design @xmath1
.    the previous definition can be naturally generalized to arbitrary sets as follows :    [ conj extension ]    1 .
given a set @xmath150 of positive designs , we define the positive design @xmath151 as follows :
if @xmath152 , we set @xmath153 .
2 .   if @xmath154 , we set @xmath155 .
otherwise , @xmath150 is a nonempty set of conjunctions and we set : @xmath156 2 .   given a set @xmath150 of abstractions , we define the abstraction @xmath151 as : @xmath157 in particular , if @xmath152 then @xmath158 .
notice that @xmath159 , as long as @xmath56 ranges over positive designs or abstractions .
a design @xmath56 is said :    1 .   * total * , if @xmath160 ; 2 .
* closed * , if @xmath56 has no occurrence of free variable ; 3 .
* linear * ( or * affine * , more precisely ) , if for any subdesign of the form @xmath161 , the sets @xmath162 ,  , @xmath163 are pairwise disjoint ; 4 .   * deterministic * , if in any occurrence of subdesign @xmath164 , @xmath52 is either empty ( we have @xmath90 ) or a singleton ( we have a predesign ) .
* cut - free * , if it does not contain a cut as a subdesign ; 6 .   * identity - free * , if it does not contain an identity as subdesign .
we remark that the notion of design introduced in @xcite exactly corresponds in our terminology to that of deterministic design .
furthermore , considering the specific signature @xmath165 given below , we can also express in our setting girard s original notion of design :    let us consider the signature @xmath166 where :    1 .
@xmath167 consists of finite subsets of @xmath168 ; 2 .
@xmath169 is the function that maps a finite subset @xmath170 to its cardinality @xmath171 .
girard s designs correspond to total , linear , deterministic , cut - free and identity - free designs which have a finite number of free variables over the signature @xmath165 .
see @xcite for more details .
ludics is an interactive theory .
this means that designs , which subsume both proofs and models , interact together via normalization , and types ( behaviours ) are defined by the induced orthogonality relation ( section [ s - behaviour ] ) .
several ways to normalize designs have been considered in the literature : abstract machines @xcite , abstract merging of orders @xcite , and terms reduction @xcite . here
we extend the last solution @xcite . as in untyped @xmath16-calculus , normalization is not necessarily terminating , but in our setting a new difficulty arises through the presence of the operator @xmath21 .
we define the normal forms in two steps , first giving a _
nondeterministic _ reduction rule which finds head normal forms whenever possible , and then expanding it corecursively . as usual , let @xmath172 $ ] denote the design obtained by the simultaneous and capture - free substitution of negative designs @xmath173 for @xmath174 in @xmath56
.    given positive designs @xmath175 , we write @xmath176 if @xmath177 and @xmath178 $ ] .
we denote by @xmath179 the transitive closure , and by @xmath180 the reflexive transitive closure of @xmath181 .    given two binary relations @xmath182 on designs , we write @xmath183 to denote the relation given by their composition @xmath184 for instance , we write @xmath185 if there exists @xmath140 such that @xmath186 and @xmath187 .
we now give examples of reductions and some remarks .
1 .   @xmath188 .
@xmath189 ( recall that @xmath190 stands for @xmath191 by our conventions on partial sums ) .
3 .   let @xmath192 .
we have @xmath193 and @xmath194 .
4 .   for @xmath195 ,
let us consider @xmath196 .
we then have an infinite reduction sequence @xmath197 since @xmath198 and the latter design reduces to @xmath199    =    n \;|\ ; { { \overline{a}}}\langle n \rangle = p$ ] .
let @xmath200 .
we have the following reduction : @xmath201 \ = \
b(t).q \;|\ ; { { \overline{b}}}\langle w   \rangle \ , \wedge \ , z|\overline{c } \langle m[b(t).q / y ] \rangle.\ ] ] we therefore have @xmath202 and @xmath203 \rangle$ ] .
since @xmath204 is a cut , we have : @xmath205 \rangle \ { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}\ q[w / t].\ ] ] 6 .
the special designs @xmath90 and @xmath80 do not reduce to anything ( as we will see , they are normal forms ) . 7 .   by its definition ,
our reduction is not
closed under context " if @xmath176 and @xmath1 ( resp .
@xmath140 ) occurs as a subdesign of @xmath56 ( resp .
@xmath55 ) , nothing ensures that @xmath206 .
for instance a negative design ( or an head normal form ) having an occurrence of cut as subdesign does not reduces to anything . to expand the reduction  under context
" we will use definition [ normal form ] .
notice that any _ closed _ positive design @xmath1 has one of the following forms : @xmath90 , @xmath80 and @xmath207 , where @xmath89 are cuts .
the conjunction then reduces to another closed positive design .
hence any sequence of reductions starting from @xmath1 either terminates with @xmath90 or @xmath80 or it diverges . by _ stipulating _ that the normal form of @xmath1 in case of divergence is @xmath80 , we obtain a dichotomy between @xmath90 and @xmath80 : the normal form of a closed positive design is either @xmath90 or @xmath80 .
this leads us to the following definition of normal form :    [ normal form ] the * normal form function * @xmath208 is defined by corecursion as follows : @xmath209    we observe that when @xmath1 is a closed positive design , we have @xmath210 precisely when _ all _ reduction sequences from @xmath1 are finite and terminate with @xmath90 ; thus our nondeterminism is _ universal _ rather than existential .
this , however , does not mean that the set @xmath211 is finite ; even when it is infinite , it may happen that @xmath210 .
the following facts are easily observed :    [ l - facts ]    1 .   if @xmath212 , @xmath213 and @xmath214 , then @xmath215 .
2 .   @xmath216 implies @xmath217 .
furthermore , if @xmath1 is a predesign , then @xmath176 implies @xmath218 .
3 .   @xmath219 , for any set @xmath150 of positive designs .
notice that the first statement means that the composed relation @xmath220 is equivalent to @xmath181 as far as total designs are concerned .    in @xcite
, it is illustrated how words and deterministic finite automata are represented by ( deterministic ) designs in ludics .
we may extend the idea to trees and finite tree automata in presence of nondeterminism .
rather than describing it in full detail , we will only give an example which illustrates the power of nondeterminism to express ( topdown ) finite tree automata .
we consider the set of _ finite trees _
labelled with @xmath221 which are at most binary branching .
it is defined by the following grammar : @xmath222 here , @xmath223 represents a tree with the root labelled by @xmath26 and with two subtrees @xmath224 . in particular , @xmath225 represents a leaf labelled by @xmath26 .
we simply write @xmath26 in this case .
suppose that the signature @xmath226 contains a unary name @xmath227 , binary names @xmath221 and a nullary name @xmath228 .
we write @xmath229 for the positive action @xmath230 .
we abbreviate @xmath231 by @xmath232 , so that we have @xmath233.\ ] ]    each tree is then represented by a deterministic linear negative design as follows : @xmath234    now consider the positive design @xmath235 $ ] defined by the following equations : @xmath236 & : = & x|{\mathord{\downarrow}}\langle a(x , y ) .
q_1[x]\wedge q_0[y]\ ; + \ ;        b(x , y ) .
q_2[x]\wedge q_2[y]\rangle , \\
q_1[x ] & : = & x|{\mathord{\downarrow}}\langle b(x , y ) .
q_2[x]\wedge q_2[y]\rangle , \\
q_2[x ] & : = & x|{\mathord{\downarrow}}\langle \epsilon.\maltese\rangle.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this design @xmath140 works as an automata accepting all trees of the form @xmath237 .    indeed , given @xmath238 , it works nondeterministically as follows : @xmath239 \\   & \rotatebox[origin = c]{200}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*\ni$ } & & \rotatebox[origin = c]{340}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*\ni$ } \\   q_1[b^\star ] & & & & q_0[a(b , b)^\star]\\   \rotatebox[origin = c]{270}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*\ni$ } & & & \rotatebox[origin = c]{200}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*\ni$ } & & \rotatebox[origin = c]{340}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*\ni$ } \\
q_2[\epsilon^\star ] & & \qquad\qquad q_1[b^\star ] & & & & q_0[b^\star ] \\
\rotatebox[origin = c]{270}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*$ } & & \qquad\qquad \rotatebox[origin = c]{270}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*\ni$ } & & & & \rotatebox[origin = c]{270}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*\ni$ } \\ \maltese & & \qquad\qquad q_2[\epsilon^\star ] & & & & q_2[\epsilon^\star ] \\   &   & \qquad\qquad \rotatebox[origin = c]{270}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*$ } & & & & \rotatebox[origin = c]{270}{${-\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^*$ } \\   &   & \qquad\qquad \maltese & & & & \maltese \end{array}\ ] ]
hence we conclude @xmath240 ] \ ! ] } = \maltese$ ] , @xmath140 `` accepts '' the tree @xmath238 .      in this subsection ,
we prove one of the fundamental properties of designs which we will need later :    [ t - assoc ] let @xmath56 be a design and @xmath241 be negative designs .
we have : @xmath242 { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket } { \llbracket}d { \rrbracket } [ { \llbracket}n_1 { \rrbracket}/y_1 , \ldots , { \llbracket}n_n { \rrbracket}/y_n ] { \rrbracket}.\ ] ]    associativity corresponds to a weak form of the church - rosser property : the normal form is the same even if we do not follow the head reduction strategy . in this paper
we are not concerned with the full church - rosser property , and leave it as an open question .
the proof consists of several stages and it can be skipped at first reading .    to prove associativity , first notice that a simultaneous substitution @xmath243 $ ] can be turned into a sequential one of the form @xmath244\cdots[n_n / z_n]$ ] by renaming @xmath245 by fresh variables @xmath246 as follows : @xmath247 = d[z_1/y_1 , \dots , z_n / y_n][n_1/z_1]\cdots[n_n / z_n].\ ] ] moreover , we have : @xmath248\!]}[\ ; { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1 , \dots , { [ \ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n ] = { [ \ ! [ \ ; d[z_1/y_1 , \dots , z_n / y_n]\ ;   ] \!]}[\ ; { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/z_1]\cdots [ \ ; { [ \ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/z_n].\ ] ] this allows us to work with sequential substitutions rather than simultaneous ones .
we define a binary relation @xmath249 on designs by :    1 .
@xmath250 if @xmath251 \cdots [ n_n / y_n]$ ] and @xmath252\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ]
\!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] for some @xmath253 such that @xmath254 for @xmath255 .
[ l - a1 ] suppose that @xmath256\cdots[n_n / y_n]$ ] and @xmath257\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] so that @xmath258 .
when @xmath259 , two cases can be distinguished .    1 .
if @xmath260 and @xmath261\cdots[n_n / y_n]$ ] , then there exists @xmath262 such that @xmath263 and @xmath264 .
otherwise , there exists @xmath262 such that @xmath265 and @xmath264 .    1 .   by lemma [ l - facts ]
( 2 ) , we have @xmath266\!]}\leq{[\ ! [ p_1 ] \!]}$ ] that implies @xmath267\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ !
[ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] .
hence by letting @xmath268\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] , we have @xmath263 and @xmath264 .
if ( 1 ) is not the case , a cut must be created by substitution of some @xmath269 for a head variable of @xmath270 .
hence @xmath270 must contain a head normal form @xmath271 as conjunct for some @xmath272 and @xmath273 , so that @xmath1 contains a cut @xmath274\cdots[n_n / y_n ] = n_j |{\overline{a}}{\langle \vec{m } \rangle}[n_1/y_1]\cdots[n_n / y_n]\ ] ] ( the equality due to @xmath254 for @xmath275 ) and @xmath276[n_1/y_1]\cdots[n_n / y_n ] $ ] @xmath277 . in this case ,
@xmath266\!]}$ ] contains @xmath278\ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] so that @xmath140 contains @xmath279\ ! ] } \rangle } [ { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n ]    = { [ \ ! [ n_j ] \ ! ]
} |{\overline{a}}{\langle { [ \ ! [ \vec{m } ] \ ! ] } \rangle } [ { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n].\ ] ] since @xmath280\ ! ] } = { \textstyle\sum}a(\vec{x}).{[\ ! [ r_a ] \!]}$ ] , we have @xmath281\!]}[\vec{{[\ !
[ m ] \!]}}/\vec{x } ] [ { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1 ] \cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] .
let @xmath262 be the latter design .
since the simultaneous substitutions @xmath282 $ ] and @xmath283\!]}}/\vec{x}]$ ] can be made sequential , we have @xmath284 .
[ l - a2 ] if @xmath258 and @xmath265 , then there exists some @xmath285 such that @xmath284 and @xmath286 .
suppose that @xmath256\cdots[n_n / y_n]$ ] , @xmath257\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] and @xmath265 .
then @xmath266\!]}$ ] must contain @xmath278\ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] for some @xmath287 and @xmath288 .
thus , @xmath289 .
suppose also @xmath273 so that @xmath280\ ! ] } = { \textstyle\sum}a(\vec{x}).{[\ ! [ r_a ] \!]}$ ] .
now the situation is as follows : @xmath140 contains @xmath279\ ! ] } \rangle } [ { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n ] = { [ \ ! [ n_j ] \ ! ]
} |{\overline{a}}{\langle { [ \ ! [ \vec{m } ] \ ! ] } \rangle } [ { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ]
\!]}/y_n],\ ] ] so we have @xmath290\!]}[\vec{{[\ ! [ m ] \!]}}/\vec{x } ] [ { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1 ] \cdots [ { [ \ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n ] = q'.\ ] ] on the other hand , @xmath291 \cdots [ n_n / y_n ] & \\ & = & n_j |{\overline{a}}{\langle \vec{m } \rangle}[n_1/y_1 ] \cdots [ n_n / y_n ] & \\ & { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup } & r_a[\vec{m}/\vec{x}_a ] [ n_1/y_1 ] \cdots [ n_n / y_n ] & = p ' , \end{array}\ ] ] which implies @xmath292 .
since the simultaneous substitutions @xmath282 $ ] and @xmath283\!]}}/\vec{x}]$ ] can be made sequential , we have @xmath284 .
[ l - a3 ] suppose that @xmath258
. then @xmath293\!]}=\omega$ ] if and only if @xmath294\ ! ] } = \omega$ ] .    1 .   for the `
if ' direction , we distinguish two cases . 1 .
if there is an infinite reduction sequence from @xmath140 , then there is also an infinite sequence from @xmath1 by lemma [ l - a2 ] .
2 .   if @xmath295 , then there is @xmath285 such that @xmath296 and @xmath297 .
namely , @xmath285 can be written as @xmath298\cdots[n_n / y_n]$ ] and @xmath299\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] .
the latter means that @xmath266\ ! ] } = \omega$ ] , which implies @xmath300\ ! ] } = \omega$ ] . from this and @xmath296 , we conclude @xmath293\ ! ] } = \omega$ ] .
2 .   for the ` only - if ' direction , if @xmath301 , we easily obtain @xmath294\ ! ] } = \omega$ ] .
otherwise , there is an infinite reduction sequence @xmath302 .
suppose that @xmath303\cdots[n_n / y_n]$ ] and @xmath304\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots[{[\ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] .
our purpose is to build either a finite reduction sequence @xmath305 or an infinite reduction sequence @xmath306 .
two cases arise : 1 .
the reductions take place inside @xmath270 and independently of @xmath307 .
namely , there is an infinite reduction sequence @xmath308 such that @xmath309\cdots[n_n / y_n]$ ] for every @xmath310
. then @xmath266\!]}= \omega$ ] , which implies @xmath311 .
so we have @xmath294\!]}=\omega$ ] .
otherwise , there is at most a finite sequence @xmath312 such that @xmath309\cdots[n_n / y_n]$ ] for @xmath313 and @xmath314 contains a head normal form that is responsible for the reduction @xmath315 . by repeatedly applying lemma [ l - a1 ] ( 1 ) , we obtain @xmath262 such that @xmath263 and @xmath316 . since @xmath315 , there exists @xmath317 such that @xmath318 and @xmath319 by lemma [ l - a1 ] ( 2 ) .
hence by lemma [ l - facts ] ( 1 ) , we obtain @xmath320 .
+ in the former case , we are already done . in the latter case
, we still have an infinite reduction sequence @xmath321 and @xmath319 .
hence we may repeat the same argument to prolong the reduction sequence @xmath322 .
hence we eventually obtain @xmath294\!]}=\omega$ ] .
[ l - a4 ] suppose that @xmath258 .    1 .
if @xmath323 , then there exist @xmath324 such that @xmath325 and @xmath326 ,  , @xmath327 .
conversely , if @xmath328 , then there exist @xmath329 such that @xmath330 and @xmath326 ,  , @xmath327 .
suppose that @xmath331 . by lemmas [ l - a1 ] and [ l - facts ] ( 1 ) ( which states that the composed relation @xmath332 is identical with @xmath181 ) , there is @xmath262 such that @xmath333 and @xmath264 . since @xmath334
, we may write @xmath335\cdots [ n_n / y_n ] = x|{\overline{a}}{\langle \vec{k}[n_1/y_1]\cdots [ n_n / y_n ] \rangle}\ ] ] for some @xmath336 , where @xmath337 , and @xmath262 contains @xmath338\ ! ] } [ { [ \ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots [ { [ \ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n ] = x|{\overline{a}}{\langle \vec{{[\ ! [ k ] \!]}}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots [ { [ \ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n ] \rangle}.\ ] ] hence by letting @xmath339\!]}[{[\ ! [ n_1 ] \!]}/y_1]\cdots [ { [ \ ! [ n_n ] \!]}/y_n]$ ] we obtain @xmath340 for every @xmath341 . since @xmath342 , namely @xmath343 , the claim holds .
conversely , suppose that @xmath344 .
by lemma [ l - a2 ] , there is @xmath285 such that @xmath345 and @xmath264 .
the rest is similar to the above .
[ l - a5 ] if @xmath346 , then either @xmath347 for a variable @xmath348 , or @xmath349 , @xmath350 and @xmath351 for every @xmath32 .
immediate .
the following lemma completes the proof of theorem [ t - assoc ] .    if @xmath352 , then @xmath353\ ! ] } = { [ \ ! [ e_0 ] \!]}$ ] .
define a binary relation @xmath125 on designs as follows :    1 .   for positive ( resp .
negative ) designs @xmath354 , we have @xmath128 if @xmath355\!]}$ ] , @xmath356\!]}$ ] , and @xmath357 for some @xmath358 and @xmath359 .
2 .   for predesigns @xmath360
, we have @xmath361 if @xmath362\ ! ] } , \dots , { [ \ ! [ m_m ] \ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] , @xmath363\ ! ] } , \dots , $ $   { [ \ ! [ l_m ] \ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] , and @xmath340 for every @xmath364 .
we now verify that this @xmath125 satisfies the conditions of lemma [ l - equiv ] .
first , let @xmath175 be positive designs such that @xmath365 , @xmath366\!]}$ ] , @xmath367\!]}$ ] , and @xmath368 for some @xmath270 and @xmath369 .    1 .
if @xmath266\!]}=\omega$ ] , then @xmath370\!]}= \omega$ ] too by lemma [ l - a3 ] . hence ( 1 ) holds .
2 .   if @xmath266\!]}$ ] is a conjunction , then @xmath370\!]}$ ] is not @xmath80 by lemma [ l - a3 ] , so is a conjunction . if @xmath266\!]}$ ] contains @xmath371\ ! ] } , \dots , { [ \ ! [ m_m ] \ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] , then @xmath372 . since @xmath368 ,
lemma [ l - a4 ] yields @xmath373 for some @xmath374 .
namely , @xmath370\!]}$ ] contains @xmath375\ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] .
moreover , we have @xmath340 for every @xmath364 . similarly
, one can show that if @xmath370\!]}$ ] contains @xmath375\ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] , then @xmath266\!]}$ ] contains @xmath376\ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] and @xmath340 for every @xmath364 .
hence ( 2 ) holds .
let @xmath360 be predesigns such that @xmath377 , i.e. , @xmath362\ ! ] } , \dots , { [ \ ! [ m_m ] \ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] , @xmath363\ ! ] } , \dots , $ $ { [ \ ! [ l_m ] \ ! ] } \rangle}$ ] , and @xmath340 for every @xmath364 .
it immediately follows that @xmath378\ ! ] } { \ ; \cr\ ; } { [ \ ! [ l_i ] \!]}$ ] for every @xmath364
. also , @xmath379 .
hence ( 3 ) holds .
finally , let @xmath380 be negative designs such that @xmath381\!]}$ ] , @xmath382\!]}$ ] , and @xmath383 for some @xmath384 and @xmath385 .    1 .
if @xmath386 , then @xmath387 . hence ( 4 ) holds .
2 .   otherwise , @xmath79 must be of the form @xmath388\!]}$ ] and @xmath389 . since @xmath383
, @xmath385 is of the form @xmath390 and @xmath391 for every @xmath32 by lemma [ l - a5 ] .
so @xmath392\ ! ] } = { \textstyle\sum}a(\vec{x}_a).{[\ ! [ q_a ] \!]}$ ] and @xmath393\ ! ] } { \ ; \cr\ ; } { [ \ ! [ q_a ]
\!]}$ ] . hence ( 5 ) holds .
therefore , if @xmath357 , we have @xmath353\ ! ] } = { [ \ ! [ e_0 ] \!]}$ ] by lemma [ l - equiv ] .
this section is concerned with the type structure of ludics .
we describe orthogonality and behaviours in [ ortho - s ] , logical connectives in [ ss - logical ] and finally explain ( the failure of ) internal completeness of logical connectives in [ ss - internal ] .      in the rest of this paper , we mainly restrict ourselves to a special subclass of designs : we only consider designs which are _ total _ , _ cut - free _ , and _ identity - free_. generalizing the terminology in @xcite , we call them _ standard designs_. in other words :    [ d - standard ] a design @xmath56 is said * standard * if it satisfies the following two conditions :    a.   _ cut - freeness and identity - freeness _
: @xmath56 can be coinductively generated by the following restricted version of the grammar given in definition [ designs ] : @xmath394 b.   _ totality _ : @xmath160 .
the totality condition is due to the original work @xcite .
it has a pleasant consequence that behaviours ( see below ) are never empty .
we also remark that the lack of identities can be somehow compensated by considering their infinitary @xmath395 expansions , called _
faxes _ in @xcite . in our setting , the infinitary @xmath395 expansion of an identity @xmath75 is expressed by the negative standard design @xmath396 defined by the equation : @xmath397 we refer to @xcite for more details .
we are now ready to define orthogonality and behaviours .    a positive design @xmath1 is said * atomic * if it is standard and @xmath398 for a certain fixed variable @xmath399
. here plays the same role as the empty address
@xmath400 " does in @xcite : @xmath399 may be thought of as a fixed and predetermined  location . " ]    a negative design @xmath79 is said * atomic * if it is standard and @xmath401 .
two atomic designs @xmath402 of opposite polarities are said * orthogonal * and written @xmath403 ( or equivalently @xmath404 ) when @xmath405 { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] .
if @xmath150 is a set of atomic designs of the same polarity , then its * orthogonal set * , denoted by @xmath406 , is defined by @xmath407 .
the meaning of @xmath21 and the associated partial order @xmath147 can be clarified in terms of orthogonality . for atomic designs @xmath354 of the same polarity ,
define @xmath408 if and only if @xmath409 .
@xmath408 means that @xmath55 has more chances of convergence than @xmath56 when interacting with other atomic designs .
the following is easy to observe .
[ conj and ort ]     1 .
@xmath410 is a preorder .
@xmath138 implies @xmath411 for any pair of atomic positive designs @xmath175 .
3 .   let @xmath150 and @xmath412 be sets of atomic designs of the same polarity
. then @xmath413 implies @xmath414 .
in particular , @xmath415 for any atomic positive design @xmath1 . , which does not officially belong to the universe of atomic designs .
] this justifies our identification of @xmath90 with the empty conjunction @xmath416 .
[ r - separation ] designs in @xcite satisfy the _ separation property _ : for any designs @xmath354 of the same polarity , we have @xmath417 if and only if @xmath418 .
but when the constraint of linearity is removed , this property no more holds , as observed in @xcite ( see also @xcite ) .    in our setting , separation does not hold , even when @xmath56 and @xmath55 are deterministic ( atomic ) designs . for instance , consider the following two designs @xcite : @xmath419 it is easy to see that in our setting @xmath403 holds if and only if @xmath79 has an additive component of the form @xmath420 for arbitrary index set @xmath52 and arbitrary standard negative designs @xmath421 with @xmath422 .
the same holds for @xmath140 , as can be observed from the following reduction sequence ( for readability , we only consider the case in which @xmath79 has a component of the form @xmath423 , the general case easily follows ) : @xmath424    & = & n \;|\ ; { \mathord{\downarrow}}\langle{\mathord{\uparrow}}(y ) .
p [ n / x_0]\rangle     \\   & { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup } & \left ( { \mathord{\uparrow}}(y ) .
p [ n / x_0]\right ) \;|\ ; { \mathord{\downarrow}}\langle m[{\mathord{\uparrow}}(y ) .
p [ n / x_0]/z]\rangle    \\   & { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup } &   p[n / x_0]\ { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^\ast \ \maltese.\end{aligned}\ ] ] ( if @xmath79 does not have a component of the form discussed above , we have @xmath425 { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^ * \omega$ ] . )    we therefore conclude @xmath426 , even though @xmath427 .
although possible , we do not define orthogonality for nonatomic designs .
accordingly , we only consider _ atomic _ behaviours which consist of atomic designs .
[ d - beh ] a * behaviour * @xmath150 is a set of atomic standard designs of the same polarity such that @xmath428 .
a behaviour is positive or negative according to the polarity of its designs .
we denote positive behaviours by @xmath429 and negative behaviours by @xmath430 .
orthogonality satisfies the following standard properties :    [ closure operator ] let @xmath431 be sets of atomic designs of the same polarity .
we have :    1 .   @xmath432 .
2 .   @xmath433 .
3 .   @xmath434 .
4 .   @xmath435 .
in particular , any orthogonal set is a behaviour .
5 .   @xmath436 . in particular
, the intersection of two behaviours is a behaviour .
we also observe that @xmath437 and @xmath438 implies @xmath439 when @xmath150 is a behaviour .    among all positive ( resp .
negative ) behaviours , there exist the least and the greatest behaviours with respect to set inclusion:@xmath440 where @xmath441 plays the role of the design called _ negative daimon _ in @xcite .
notice that behaviours are always nonempty due to the totality condition : any positive ( resp .
negative ) behaviour contains @xmath90 ( resp .
@xmath442 ) .
now that we have given behaviours , we can define _ contexts of behaviours _ and then the _ semantical entailment _
@xmath443 in order to relate designs to contexts of behaviours .
these constructs play the role of typing environments in type systems .
they correspond to _ sequents of behaviours _
, in the terminology of @xcite .
a.   a * positive context * @xmath444 is of the form @xmath445 , where @xmath34 are distinct variables and @xmath446 are ( atomic ) positive behaviours .
we denote by @xmath447 the set @xmath448 . + a * negative context *
@xmath449 is a positive context @xmath444 enriched with an ( atomic ) negative behaviour @xmath450 , to which no variable is associated .
b.   the * semantical entailment * is the binary relation @xmath443 between designs and contexts of behaviours of the same polarity defined as follows : + @xmath451 if and only if : 1 .
@xmath1 is standard ; 2 .
@xmath452 ; 3 .
@xmath453 { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] for any @xmath454 ,  , @xmath455 .
+ @xmath456 if and only if : 1 .
@xmath79 is standard ; 2 .
@xmath457 ; 3 .
@xmath458/x_0 ] { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] for any @xmath454 ,  , @xmath455 , @xmath459 .
clearly , @xmath460 if and only if @xmath461 , and @xmath462 if and only if @xmath463\in \bp$ ]
. furthermore , associativity ( theorem [ t - assoc ] ) implies the following quite useful principle :    [ l - closure ]    1 .
@xmath464 if and only if @xmath465 { \rrbracket}\models \bgamma$ ] for any @xmath466 ; 2 .
@xmath467 if and only if @xmath468 { \rrbracket}\models   \bgamma$ ] for any @xmath469 ; 3 .
@xmath470 if and only if @xmath471 { \rrbracket}\models \bgamma,\bn$ ] for any @xmath466 .    1 .
let @xmath1 be a standard design with @xmath472 and @xmath444 a context @xmath473 .
first , we claim that @xmath465 { \rrbracket}$ ] is a standard design when @xmath464 and @xmath466 .
indeed , it is obviously cut - free .
it is also identity - free because so are @xmath474 and neither substitution @xmath475 $ ] nor normalization @xmath465 { \rrbracket}$ ] introduces identities .
totality will be shown below .
we also note that @xmath476 { \rrbracket } ) \subseteq \{x_1 , \dots , x_n\}$ ] , since @xmath2 is an atomic negative design that is always closed . + next , we observe that @xmath477 { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}\ ; { \llbracket}p[m / z ] { \rrbracket}\ ;   [ \vec{k}/\vx ] { \rrbracket}$ ] for any list @xmath478 of standard negative designs . indeed ,
notice that @xmath479 = p[m / z ]   [ \vec{k}/\vx]$ ] since @xmath2 is closed , and @xmath480\ ! ] } = k_i$ ] since @xmath481 is cut - free . hence by associativity , we obtain : @xmath482 { \rrbracket}=   { \llbracket}p[m / z ]   [ \vec{k}/\vx ] { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}\ ; { \llbracket}p[m / z ] { \rrbracket}\ ;   [ { \llbracket}\vec{k } { \rrbracket}/\vx ] { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}\ ; { \llbracket}p[m / z ] { \rrbracket}\ ;   [   \vec{k } /\vx ] { \rrbracket}. \ ] ] in particular , @xmath477 { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] implies the totality of @xmath465 { \rrbracket}$ ] .
+ we are now ready to prove the first claim . writing @xmath483 for @xmath484 ,  , @xmath485
, we have : @xmath486 { \rrbracket}= \maltese \mbox { for every $ \vec{k}\in \bgamma{{}^{\bot}}$ and $ m\in \bp^\bot$ } , \\ & \longleftrightarrow & { \llbracket}\ ; { \llbracket}p[m / z ] { \rrbracket}\ ;   [   \vec{k } /\vx ] { \rrbracket}= \maltese \mbox { for every $ \vec{k}\in \bgamma{{}^{\bot}}$ and $ m\in \bp^\bot$ } , \\ & \longleftrightarrow & { \llbracket}p[m / z ] { \rrbracket}\models \bgamma \mbox { for every $ m\in \bp^\bot$.}\end{aligned}\ ] ] 2 .   and ( 3 ) are proven in a similar way .
we just mention that the crucial equalities @xmath487/x_0 ] { \rrbracket } & = & { \llbracket}\ ; { \llbracket}q[n / x_0 ] { \rrbracket}\ ; [ \vec { k } /\vx ] { \rrbracket},\\ { \llbracket}q[n[\vec{k}/\vx , m / z]/x_0 ] { \rrbracket } & = & { \llbracket}q [ \ ; { \llbracket}n[m / z ] { \rrbracket}\ ; [ \vec{k}/\vx]/x_0 ] { \rrbracket},\end{aligned}\ ] ] which are needed to show ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) respectively , can be straightforwardly derived from associativity .
we next describe how to build behaviours by means of _ logical connectives _ in ludics .
[ d - lc ] an * @xmath40-ary logical connective * @xmath95 is a pair @xmath488 where :    1 .
@xmath489 is a sequence of distinct variables ; 2 .
@xmath490 is a finite set of negative actions such that : 1 .
the names @xmath491 are distinct ; 2 .
@xmath492 for each @xmath493 .
two logical connectives are identified if one is obtained from another by renaming of variables .
we can intuitively explain the structure of logical connectives in terms of standard connectives of linear logic as follows .    the variables @xmath494 play the role of _ placeholders _ for ( immediate ) subformulas , while @xmath495 determines the _ logical structure _ of @xmath95 .
an action @xmath496 can be seen as a kind of @xmath497-ary  tensor product " @xmath498 indexed by the name @xmath26 .
the whole set @xmath495 can be thought of as @xmath499-ary  additive sum " of its elements : @xmath500    in appendix [ pol ll ] we give a more precise correspondence between logical connective in our sense and connectives of polarized linear logic @xcite .
[ example ] consider the logical connective @xmath501 . by the previous discussion
, we can intuitively think of it as @xmath502 when @xmath95 is applied to @xmath503 , it gives the formula @xmath504    we now define behaviours built by logical connectives .    [ d - log conn beh ] given an @xmath497-ary name @xmath26 , an @xmath40-ary logical connective @xmath505 with @xmath506 and behaviours @xmath507 we define :    1 .
@xmath508 2 .
@xmath509 3 .
@xmath510    where the indices @xmath511 vary for each @xmath512 and are determined by the variables @xmath513 .
we call the set @xmath514 the _ ethics _ of @xmath515 .
[ ethics ] an ethics is a set of atomic predesigns which are by construction linear in @xmath399 .
it can be seen as a  generator " of a behaviour defined by logical connectives in the following sense . for positives
, we have by definition @xmath516 . for negatives ,
we have by proposition [ closure operator ] ( 3 ) : @xmath517    let @xmath95 be the logical connective as given in example [ example ] and @xmath518 negative behaviours .
we have @xmath519 .    [ linear ]
logical connectives @xmath520{180}{\&}\ , } , \with , { \mathord{\uparrow}},\bot , \top$ ] can be defined if the signature @xmath226 contains a nullary name @xmath521 , unary names @xmath522 and a binary name @xmath523 .
we also give notations to their duals for readability .
@xmath524 where @xmath228 denotes the empty sequence .
we do not have exponentials here , because we are working in a nonlinear setting so that they are already incorporated into the connectives . with these logical connectives
we can build behaviours corresponding to usual linear logic types ( we use infix notations such as @xmath525 rather than the prefix ones @xmath526 ) .
@xmath527    the next theorem illustrates a special feature of behaviours defined by logical connectives .
it also suggests that nonlinearity and universal nondeterminism play dual roles .
[ p - duphalf ] [ fundi ] [ p - log ] let @xmath528 be an arbitrary positive behaviour .
1 .   @xmath529 \in   \bp$ ] .
2 .   @xmath530 .
moreover , if @xmath528 is _ obtained by applying a logical connective _ , that is @xmath531 for some @xmath95 , @xmath532 , then :    1 .
the converse of _ ( 1 ) _
( _ duplicability _ ) and 2 .
the converse of _ ( 2 ) _ ( _ closure under @xmath21 _ ) hold .    1 .   for any @xmath533 , we have @xmath534 { \rrbracket}=\maltese$ ] .
hence , @xmath535[n / x_0 ] { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] , and so @xmath536 \in \bp^{\bot\bot } = \bp$ ] .
2 .   by proposition
[ conj and ort ] ( 3 ) , we have @xmath537 for any @xmath538 .
since @xmath539 is a behaviour , it is upward closed with respect to @xmath410 .
hence the claim holds .
3 .   for the sake of readability , we consider the binary case and show that @xmath540 implies @xmath541 . the general case can be proven using the same argument .
+ let @xmath542 .
to prove @xmath543 , by remark [ ethics ] , it is sufficient to show that @xmath544 is orthogonal to any @xmath545 .
since by construction @xmath399 occurs only once at the head position of @xmath546 , we only have to show that @xmath547 .
+ let @xmath548 and @xmath549 so that @xmath550 .
since @xmath551 is a predesign , we have by lemma [ l - facts ] ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) : @xmath552 { \rrbracket}=    { \llbracket}p_a[\vec{k}/\vx ] { \rrbracket}\wedge   { \llbracket}q_a[\vec{k}/\vx ] { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}n \;|\ ; { { \overline{a}}}\langle \vec{k } \rangle { \rrbracket}\wedge { \llbracket}m \;|\ ; { { \overline{a}}}\langle \vec{k } \rangle { \rrbracket}.\ ] ] since @xmath553 , we have @xmath554 and @xmath555 . our claim
then immediately follows .
4 .   let @xmath556\in \bp = \coal\langle \bn_1,\ldots,\bn_n \rangle$ ] .
it suffices to show that @xmath557 { \rrbracket}=\maltese$ ] holds for any @xmath558 .
but we have just proven that @xmath559 , and so @xmath560[n\wedge m / x_0 ] { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}p[n\wedge m / x_1 , n\wedge m / x_2 ] { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] . since @xmath561 by proposition [ conj and ort ] ( 3 )
, we have @xmath562 { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] .    theorem [ p - log ]
can be considered as an internal , monistic form of soundness and completeness for the contraction rule : soundness corresponds to point ( 1 ) while completeness to its converse ( 3 ) , duplicability .    however , in the sequel we only use point ( 1 ) ( in theorem [ soundness ] ) and point ( 4 ) ( in lemma [ l - comp ] ) of theorem [ p - log ] .      in @xcite ,
girard proposes a purely monistic , local notion of completeness , called _
internal completeness_. it means that we can give a precise and direct description to the elements of behaviours ( built by logical connectives ) without using the orthogonality and without referring to any proof system .
it is easy to see that negative logical connectives enjoy internal completeness :    [ t - negative ] let @xmath563 be a logical connective with @xmath564 and @xmath565 an atomic negative design .
we have : @xmath566 where the indices @xmath567 are determined by the variables @xmath568 .
let @xmath548 be an atomic negative design and @xmath569 .
since @xmath570 $ ] is a predesign and @xmath399 occurs only at the head position of @xmath1 , we have by lemma [ l - facts ] ( 2 ) : @xmath571 { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}{\textstyle\sum}a(\vx).p_a   \;|\ ; { { \overline{a}}}\langle n_1,\ldots , n_m \rangle { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}p_a[n_1/z_{i_1},\ldots , n_m / z_{i_m } ] { \rrbracket}.\ ] ] this means that @xmath572 ( see remark [ ethics ] ) if and only if for every @xmath573 and for every @xmath574 , @xmath575 { \rrbracket}=\maltese $ ] if and only if for every @xmath573 , @xmath576 ( see definition [ d - context ] ( b ) ) .
notice that in the above , @xmath577 can be arbitrary when @xmath578 .
thus our approach is `` immaterial '' in that we do not consider material designs ( see @xcite for the definition of material design ) .
the original `` material '' version of internal completeness @xcite can be easily derived from our immaterial one .
a remarkable example of internal completeness for negative behaviours is provided for the logical connective @xmath579 : @xmath580 above , the irrelevant components of the sum are suppressed by `` @xmath581 . ''
up to materiality ( removal of irrelevant additive components ) , @xmath582 , which has been defined by _ intersection _ , is isomorphic to the _ cartesian product _ of @xmath528 and @xmath583 .
this isomorphism is called  _ the mystery of incarnation _ " in @xcite .    as to positive connectives , @xcite proves internal completeness theorems for additive and multiplicative ones separately in the linear and deterministic setting .
they are integrated in @xcite as follows :    when the universe of standard designs is restricted to linear and deterministic ones , we have @xmath584    however , this is no more true with nonlinear designs .
a counterexample is given below .
[ example completeness ] let us consider the behaviour @xmath585 and the designs @xmath586 and @xmath587 of remark [ r - separation ] . by construction
, @xmath1 belongs to @xmath528 .
since @xmath588 , @xmath140 also belongs to @xmath528 .
however , @xmath589 , since @xmath590 is not atomic and so can not belong to @xmath591 .
this motivates us to directly prove completeness for proofs , rather than deriving it from internal completeness as in the original work @xcite . in @xcite a weaker form of internal completeness
is proved , which is enough to derive a weaker form of full completeness : all _ finite _ `` winning '' designs are interpretations of proofs .
while such a finiteness assumption is quite common in game semantics , we will show that it can be avoided in ludics .
we end this section with the following remark .
the main linear logic isomorphism , namely the exponential one @xmath592 can be expressed in our notation as @xmath593 .    in our setting it is possible to prove that those behaviours are  morally " isomorphic , in the sense that they are isomorphic if we consider designs equal up to materiality and @xmath55 are equal up to materiality in a behaviour @xmath594 if they only differ in occurrences of positive subdesign which are irrelevant for the normalization against designs of @xmath595 . ] .
we can in fact define a pair of maps @xmath596 on designs such that :    1 .   @xmath597 and @xmath598 ; 2 .
if @xmath1 and @xmath140 are equal up to materiality in @xmath599 , then @xmath600 and @xmath601 are equal up to materiality in @xmath602 , and similarly for @xmath603 ; 3 .   for any @xmath604 , we have that @xmath605 and @xmath1 are equal up to materiality in @xmath599 , and similarly for the other direction .
we postpone a detailed study of isomorphisms of types and related issues to a subsequent work .
having set up the framework , we now address the main problem : an interactive form of gdel completeness .
we first introduce the proof system in [ proof system ] , then examine its soundness in [ ss - soundness ] , and finally prove completeness in [ completeness ] , in a way quite analogous to the proof of gdel s theorem based on proof search ( often attributed to schtte @xcite ) .
we will now introduce a proof system . in our system ,
logical rules are automatically generated by logical connectives . since the names which constitute the logical connectives are chosen among the names of a signature @xmath30 , the set of logical connectives vary for each signature @xmath226 .
thus , our proof system is parameterized by @xmath226 .
if one chooses @xmath226 rich enough , the constant - only fragment of polarized linear logic ( @xcite ; see also @xcite ) can be embedded , as we will show in appendix [ pol ll ] .    in the sequel ,
we focus on _ logical _ behaviours , which are composed by using logical connectives only .
[ logical behaviours ] a behaviour is * logical * if it is inductively built as follows ( @xmath95 denotes an arbitrary logical connective ) : @xmath606    notice that the orthogonal of a logical behaviour is again logical .
as advocated in the introduction , our monistic framework renders both proofs and models as homogeneous objects : designs .
[ proof , models ] a * proof * is a standard design ( definition [ d - standard ] ) in which all the conjunctions are unary . in other words , a proof is a total , deterministic and @xmath90-free design without cuts and identities . a * model * is a linear standard design ( in which conjunctions of arbitrary cardinality may occur ) .
we will use proofs as proof - terms for syntactic derivations in the proof system to be introduced below . in that perspective , it is reasonable to exclude designs with non - unary conjunctions from proofs , because they do not have natural counterparts in logical reasoning .
for instance , the nullary conjunction ( daimon ) and the binary one would correspond to the following `` inference rules '' respectively : @xmath607 with @xmath608 an arbitrary sequent .
notice that we have not specified yet what a proof actually proves .
hence it might be better called `` proof attempt '' or `` untyped proof '' or `` para - proof . ''    on the other hand , we restrict models to linear designs just to emphasize the remarkable fact that _ linear _ designs do suffice for defeating any failed proof attempt that is possibly _ nonlinear_.    given a design @xmath56 , let @xmath609 be the set of occurrences of positive actions @xmath31 in @xmath56 .
the _ cardinality _ of @xmath56 is defined to be the cardinality of @xmath609 .
for instance , the fax @xmath610 ( see section [ ortho - s ] ) is an infinite design in this sense .
also , both proofs and models can be infinite .
a _ positive _ ( resp .  _ negative _ ) _ sequent _ is a pair of the form @xmath611 ( resp .
@xmath612 ) where @xmath1 is a positive proof ( resp .
@xmath79 is a negative proof ) and @xmath444 is a positive context of logical behaviours ( definition [ d - context ] ( a ) ) such that @xmath613 ( resp .
@xmath614 ) .
we write @xmath615 for a generic sequent .
intuitively , a sequent @xmath615 should be understood as a claim that `` @xmath56 is a proof of @xmath616 '' or `` @xmath56 is of type @xmath616 . ''
our proof system consists of two sorts of inference rules :    1 .
a _ positive _ rule @xmath617 : + @xmath618{z|\coa\langle m_1 , \dots , m_m \rangle\vdash \bgamma } { m_1 \vdash \bgamma , \bn_{i_1 } & \dots & m_m \vdash \bgamma , \bn_{i_m } & ( z:\coal\langle\bn_1 , \dots , \bn_n\rangle \in \bgamma)}\ ] ] where @xmath488 , @xmath489 and @xmath619 so that the indices @xmath620 are determined by the variables @xmath621 .
2 .   a _ negative _ rule @xmath622 : @xmath623{{\textstyle\sum}a(\vx).p_a \vdash \bgamma , \alpha(\bp_1 , \dots , \bp_n ) } { \{p_a \vdash \bgamma , z_{i_1 } : \bp_{i_1 } , \dots , z_{i_m } : \bp_{i_m}\}_{a(\vx)\in \alpha_0 } } \ ] ] where , as in the positive rule , the indices @xmath624 are determined by the variables @xmath621 for each @xmath512 .
+ we assume that @xmath37 are fresh , do not occur in @xmath444 .
this does not cause a loss of generality since variables in @xmath95 can be renamed ( see definition [ d - lc ] ) .
+ notice that a component @xmath70 of @xmath47 can be arbitrary when @xmath625 .
hence we again take an `` immaterial '' approach ( theorem [ t - negative ] ) .
observe that the positive rule @xmath617 involves implicit uses of the contraction rule on positive behaviours .
the weakening rule for positive behaviours is implicit too ; in the bottom up reading of a proof derivation , unused formulas are always propagated to the premises of any instance of rule .
it should also be noted that proof search in our system is deterministic .
in particular , given a positive sequent @xmath626 , the head variable @xmath627 and the first positive action @xmath31 completely determine the next positive rule to be applied bottom - up ( if there is any ) .
it is also possible to adopt a `` material '' approach in the proof system by simply requiring @xmath628 when @xmath625 in the rule @xmath622 . then a proof @xmath56 is finite ( @xmath609 is a finite set ) whenever @xmath629 is derivable for some @xmath630 .
thus , as in ordinary sequent calculi , our proof system accepts only _ essentially finite _ proofs for derivable sequents ( finite up to removal of irrelevant parts ) .
[ example top fax ] to clarify the last point , we observe that for any ( _ possibly infinite _ ) negative proof @xmath79 with @xmath631 , the sequent @xmath632 is derivable by the instance of the negative rule with @xmath633 . in fact
, this corresponds to the usual top - rule of linear logic ( see also example [ linear rules ] ) :    this means that for a ( possibly infinite ) negative proof @xmath79 there is a finite derivation of @xmath632 .
by contrast , in the `` material '' approach we only have    where @xmath634 is the unique negative proof which has cardinality @xmath635 .
[ linear rules ] for linear logic connectives ( example [ linear ] ) , the positive and negative rules specialize to the following ( taking here the `` material '' approach ) :    @xmath636{z|\bullet\langle m_1 , m_2\rangle \vdash \bgamma } { m_1 \vdash \bgamma , \bn_1 & m_2 \vdash \bgamma , \bn_2 & ( z:\bn_1 \pmb{\otimes } \bn_2 \in \bgamma ) } \quad \infer[\pmb{{\,\rotatebox[origin = c]{180}{\&}\,}}]{\wp(x_1 , x_2 ) .
p   \vdash \bgamma ,
\bp_1 \pmb{{\,\rotatebox[origin = c]{180}{\&}\ , } } \bp_2}{p \vdash \bgamma , x_1 : \bp_1 , x_2 : \bp_2}\\[1em ] \infer[(\pmb{\llplus } , \iota_i)]{z|\iota_i\langle m\rangle \vdash \bgamma } { m \vdash \bgamma , \bn_i & ( z:\bn_1 \pmb{\llplus } \bn_2 \in \bgamma ) } \qquad \infer[\pmb{\llwith}]{\pi_1(x_1 ) .
p_1 + \pi_2(x_2 ) .
p_2   \vdash \bgamma , \bp_1 \pmb{\llwith } \bp_2}{p_1 \vdash \bgamma , x_1 : \bp_1 & p_2 \vdash \bgamma , x_2 : \bp_2}\\[1em ] \infer[({\pmb{\mathord{\downarrow } } } , { \mathord{\downarrow}})]{z|{\mathord{\downarrow}}\langle n\rangle \vdash { { \mathbf{\gamma } } } } { n \vdash \bgamma , { { \mathbf{n } } } & ( z : { \pmb{\mathord{\downarrow}}}{{\mathbf{n}}}\in \bgamma ) } \qquad \infer[{\pmb{\mathord{\uparrow}}}]{{\mathord{\uparrow}}(x).p   \vdash \bgamma , { \pmb{\mathord{\uparrow}}}\bp}{p \vdash \bgamma , x : \bp}\\[1em ] \infer[(\llone,\overline{*})]{z|\overline{*}\vdash\bgamma } {   ( z:\llone \in \bgamma ) } \qquad \infer[({\pmb{\bot}})]{*.p\vdash\bgamma,{\pmb{\bot}}}{p\vdash\bgamma } \qquad \infer[({\pmb{\top}})]{{\textstyle\sum}a(\vx).\omega \vdash\bgamma,{\pmb{\top } } } { } \end{array}\ ] ]      the inference rules given above are all sound . namely we have :    [ soundness ] if @xmath615 is derivable in the proof system , then @xmath637 .
by induction on the length of the derivation of @xmath615 .
we have two cases , one for each sort of rule .    1 .
suppose that the last inference rule is + @xmath618{z|\coa\langle m_1 , \dots , m_m \rangle\vdash \bgamma } { m_1 \vdash \bgamma , \bn_{i_1 } & \dots & m_m \vdash \bgamma , \bn_{i_m } & ( z:\coal\langle\bn_1 , \dots , \bn_n\rangle \in \bgamma)}\ ] ] where @xmath638 and @xmath639 for some @xmath640 .
+ the induction hypothesis gives us @xmath641 for every @xmath642 . by lemma [ l - closure ] ( 3 ) , @xmath643 { \rrbracket}\in \bn_{i_j}$ ] for every @xmath644 and by definition [ d - lc ] , we have that @xmath645 , that is @xmath646 . + applying lemma [ l - closure ] ( 1 ) , we get @xmath647 and by theorem [ p - duphalf ] ( 1 ) we conclude @xmath648 .
2 .   suppose now that the last inference rule is + @xmath623{{\textstyle\sum}a(\vx).p_a \vdash \bgamma , \alpha(\bp_1 , \dots , \bp_n ) } { \{p_a \vdash \bgamma , \vx : \vec{\bp}_a\}_{a(\vx)\in \alpha_0 } } \ ] ] where @xmath649 and @xmath650 stands for @xmath651 .
we assume that the variables @xmath652 and @xmath37 are disjoint in any premise .
+ the induction hypothesis gives us @xmath653 for every @xmath654 . by lemma [ l - closure ]
( 1 ) , for every @xmath655 , @xmath656 { \rrbracket}\models \vx : \vec{\bp}_a$ ] .
+ then , we can apply theorem [ t - negative ] to obtain @xmath657 , that is @xmath658 .
notice that in @xmath659 the components @xmath70 for @xmath660 can be arbitrary .
+ we finally apply lemma [ l - closure ] ( 3 ) and conclude @xmath661 .
although our proof system does not include a cut rule officially , the semantics validates it as follows .    1 .   if @xmath662 and @xmath663 , then @xmath465 { \rrbracket}\models \bgamma$ ] .
2 .   if @xmath664 and @xmath663 , then @xmath471 { \rrbracket}\models \bn,\bgamma$ ] .    let @xmath444 be @xmath473 , let @xmath665 and write @xmath666 for @xmath667 .    1 .   by lemma [ l - closure ] , we have @xmath668 { \rrbracket}\models z : \bp$ ] and @xmath669 { \rrbracket}\models \bp{{}^{\bot}}$ ] , so that @xmath670 \in \bp$ ] and and @xmath671 .
hence , @xmath672[m'/x_0 ] { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}p'[m'/z ] { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] . from this fact and associativity ( theorem [ t - assoc ] ) , we can derive @xmath673 { \rrbracket}[\vec { k } /\vx ]    { \rrbracket}=\maltese$ ] , which proves @xmath465 { \rrbracket}\models \bgamma$ ] .
2 .   let @xmath140 be an arbitrary design in @xmath674 . by lemma [ l - closure ]
, we obtain @xmath468 { \rrbracket}\models \bgamma , z : \bp$ ] and @xmath675 { \rrbracket}[\vec{k}/\vx ] { \rrbracket}\models z : \bp$ ] . on the other side
, we have @xmath669 { \rrbracket}\models \bp{{}^{\bot}}$ ] . from @xmath676 \in \bp$ ] and and @xmath671 , we obtain @xmath677[m'/x_0 ] { \rrbracket}= { \llbracket}q'[m'/z ] { \rrbracket}= \maltese$ ] . from this fact and associativity
, we can derive @xmath678 { \rrbracket}[\vec { k } /\vx ] \ ; /x_0 ]    { \rrbracket}=\maltese$ ] , which proves @xmath471 { \rrbracket}\models \bn,\bgamma$ ] .
thanks to the previous proposition , we can naturally strengthen our proof system as follows .
first , we consider sequents of the form @xmath615 where @xmath56 is a  proof with cuts " ( a proof in the sense of definition [ proof , models ] except that the cut - freeness condition is not imposed ) .
second , we add the following cut rule : @xmath679{d[n / z]\vdash \mathbf{\xi},\bgamma } { d \vdash \mathbf{\xi } , \bgamma , z:\bp & n \vdash \bgamma , \bp^\bot}\ ] ] where @xmath680 is either empty or it consists of a negative logical behaviour @xmath450 .
the soundness theorem can be naturally generalized as follows :    if @xmath615 is derivable in the proof system with the cut rule above , then @xmath681 .
let us finally establish the other direction of theorem [ soundness ] , namely :    [ full completeness ] a sequent @xmath682 is derivable in the proof system if and only if @xmath683 .    in particular , for any positive logical behaviour @xmath528 and a proof @xmath1
, @xmath684 is derivable if and only if @xmath685 .
similarly for the negative case .
before proving the theorem , let us recall a well - established method for proving gdel completeness based on proof search ( often attributed to schtte @xcite ) .
it proceeds as follows :    1 .
given an unprovable sequent @xmath608 , find an open branch in the cut - free proof search tree .
2 .   from the open branch ,
build a countermodel @xmath2 in which @xmath608 is false .
the proof below follows the same line of argument
. we can naturally adapt ( 1 ) to our setting , since the bottom - up cut - free proof search in our proof system is deterministic in the sense that at most one rule applies at each step .
moreover , it never gets stuck at the negative sequent , since a negative rule is always applicable bottom - up .
adapting ( 2 ) is more delicate .    for simplicity ,
we assume that the sequent @xmath686 is positive ; the argument below can be easily adapted to the negative case .
so , suppose that a positive sequent @xmath687 with @xmath688 does not have a derivation . by knig s lemma
, there exists a branch @xmath689 in the cut - free proof search tree , @xmath690 which is _ either _ finite and has the topmost sequent @xmath691 with @xmath692 to which no rule applies anymore , _ or _ infinite . in the latter case
, we set @xmath693 .
our goal is to build models @xmath694 such that @xmath695 ] \!]}= \omega.\ ] ] more generally , we define negative designs    1 .
@xmath696 for every @xmath310 ( @xmath697 if @xmath698 ) ; 2 .
@xmath699 for every variable @xmath75 occurring in the branch .
below , @xmath95 and @xmath73 stand for logical connectives : @xmath488 , @xmath700 .    to define @xmath696 we distinguish three cases : ( i ) when @xmath701 and @xmath702 , let @xmath703 .
\(ii ) when @xmath704 and @xmath705 , suppose that @xmath691 is of the form @xmath706 but @xmath707 so that the proof search gets stuck
. then let @xmath708 .
recall that the partial sum @xmath709 has @xmath710 as component by our convention .
\(iii ) for @xmath711 , suppose that the relevant part of the branch @xmath689 is of the form : @xmath712{z|\coa\langle m_1,\ldots , m_{{k-1 } } , { \textstyle\sum}b(\vy).p_{i+1 } , m_{k+1},\ldots , m_{{m}}\rangle\vdash \btheta_i } {      \infer[(\beta)]{{\textstyle\sum}b(\vy ) .
\vdash \btheta_i , \bn_{i_k } } {          \infer*{p_{i+1 } \vdash \btheta_i , y_1 : \bq_1 , \dots , y_l : \bq_l}{}}}},\ ] ] where @xmath713 contains @xmath714 , @xmath715 with @xmath716 , and @xmath717 @xmath718 , @xmath719 with @xmath720 .
namely , the situation is as follows ( to be read bottom - up ) :    1 .
the head variable of @xmath721 is @xmath627 , so @xmath714 is chosen from the context @xmath713 and the rule @xmath617 is applied . among @xmath497
upper sequents , the @xmath499th one is taken in the branch .
@xmath722 is negative , and the unique negative behaviour in @xmath723 is @xmath717 @xmath718 , so the rule @xmath724 is applied . among the upper sequents (
recall that there is one sequent for each action in @xmath725 ) , the one corresponding to @xmath726 is taken in the branch .    in this case
, we define @xmath727 here , the main additive component of @xmath696 begins with @xmath728 because ( 1 ) @xmath721 begins with the positive action @xmath31 , ( 2 ) the @xmath499th upper sequent is taken in the branch , and ( 3 ) the upper sequent corresponding to @xmath729 is taken .
the other additive components @xmath730 are needed to ensure that our countermodel belongs to the behaviour @xmath731 ( see lemma [ l - comp ] ( 1 ) ) .
the subdesigns @xmath732 are given by @xmath733 notice that each @xmath734 is a negative design , so the above conjunction is a defined operation ( in the sense of definition [ conj extension ] ( 2 ) ) .
we claim that @xmath696 is well - defined , because variables @xmath71 are chosen fresh , so do not appear freely below @xmath735 .
hence subdesigns @xmath732 do not have @xmath736 with @xmath737 as conjunct .
namely , @xmath696 depends only on @xmath734 with @xmath738 .
this gives rise to a recursive procedure and @xmath696 arises in the limit of the procedure .
notice also that the set @xmath739 can be empty and in such a case , we have that @xmath740 .
the above is an instance of corecursive definition .
it is possible to formally justify it by employing _
design generators _ developed in @xcite ( see in particular theorem 2.12 of @xcite ) .
an alternative way is to define @xmath696 ( and @xmath741 ) as the limit of its finite approximations .
here we briefly outline this latter approach .
we assume that @xmath693 .
the idea is to chop off the branch @xmath689 at height @xmath742 , where @xmath742 is an arbitrary natural number , and define finite approximations @xmath743 and @xmath744 .
then @xmath696 and @xmath741 arise as the limit when @xmath745 .    more concretely , given a natural number @xmath742 , we define @xmath743 by downward induction from @xmath746 to @xmath747 as follows :    1 .   when @xmath748 , the sequent @xmath749 is of the form @xmath750 .
we let @xmath751 .
when @xmath752 , we proceed as in the case ( iii ) above .
namely , @xmath753 where actions @xmath93 , @xmath754 and the index @xmath755 are determined as before .
now observe that the sequence @xmath756 is `` monotone increasing '' in the sense that @xmath757 has more conjuncts than @xmath758 whenever @xmath759 .
the same for @xmath760 with @xmath761 .
hence we can naturally obtain the `` limits '' @xmath762 this construction ends up with the same as the previous recursive one .
observe that each @xmath696 and @xmath699 thus constructed are surely models , atomic linear designs .
theorem [ full completeness ] is a direct consequence of the following two lemmas .
the first lemma crucially rests on _ induction on logical behaviours _ , that is an analogue of _ induction on formulas _ , which lies at the core of logical completeness in many cases .
[ l - comp ] for @xmath763 appearing in the branch @xmath689 above , suppose that @xmath721 has a head variable @xmath627 and @xmath764 .
then :    1 .   @xmath765 ; 2 .
@xmath766 .    by induction on the construction of @xmath767 .    1 .
suppose that @xmath704 .
since @xmath80 does not have a head variable , the case ( i ) does not apply .
hence we are in the case ( ii ) , namely @xmath768 , for some logical connective @xmath95 and logical behaviours @xmath532 .
thus , @xmath769 , and @xmath708 .
+ by internal completeness for negative connectives ( theorem [ t - negative ] ) , we have @xmath770 where @xmath771 and the expression @xmath772 abbreviates the positive context @xmath773 .
since @xmath774 trivially holds for every @xmath512 , we have @xmath775 . + when @xmath776 , the case ( iii ) applies . in the same notation
, we have that @xmath777 , @xmath717 @xmath778 , and @xmath779 where actions @xmath93 , @xmath754 , the index @xmath755 and the variables @xmath780 are determined by the relevant part of the branch @xmath689 as described above .
+ by induction hypothesis on ( 2 ) , we have that @xmath781 . hence , @xmath782 .
since @xmath783 are atomic ( closed ) , we may derive @xmath784 .
we also have @xmath785 for every @xmath786 .
hence , by internal completeness again , @xmath787 .
2 .   it follows from ( 1 ) since @xmath788 is a negative logical behaviour and so closed under @xmath21 ( theorem [ p - log ] ( 4 ) ) .
the proof of the next lemma suggests a similarity between the construction of our countermodels and the _ bhm - out _ technique ( see , @xcite ) , that constructs a suitable term context in order to visit a specific position in the bhm tree of a given @xmath16-term .
recall that the initial sequent of our open branch @xmath689 is @xmath687 with @xmath688 , so that @xmath789 .
we have :    [ l - bohm ] @xmath695 ] \ ! ] } = \omega.\ ] ]    we first prove that there is a reduction sequence @xmath790 { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^ * p_{i+1 } [ \cm(w_1)/w_1 , \dots , \cm(w_t)/w_t]\ ] ] for any @xmath776 , where @xmath791 and @xmath792 are the free variables of @xmath721 and @xmath793 , respectively .
suppose that @xmath721 is as in the case ( iii ) above , so has the head variable @xmath794 . by writing @xmath795
$ ] for @xmath796 $ ] and noting that @xmath797 is a ( defined ) conjunction that contains @xmath798 as conjunct , we have : @xmath799 & = & \cm(z ) \ | \
\coa\langle m_1[\theta],\ldots , m_{{k-1}}[\theta ] , { \textstyle\sum}b(\vy).p_{i+1}[\theta ] , m_{k+1}[\theta],\ldots , m_{{m}}[\theta]\rangle   \\ & { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup } & \left({\textstyle\sum}b(\vy).p_{i+1}[\theta]\right ) \ ;    &   { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup } &   p_{i+1}[\theta , \cm(y_{1})/ y_{1 } , \ldots , \cm(y_{l})/y_{l}],\\ \end{array}\ ] ] as desired .
when @xmath693 , we have obtained an infinite reduction sequence from @xmath800 $ ] . otherwise , @xmath800 { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}^ * p_{max}[\theta]$ ] , for some substitution @xmath795 $ ] .    in case ( i ) , we have @xmath801 = \omega$ ] , while in case ( ii ) , we have @xmath802 .
so , @xmath803 = z|\coc\langle \vec{m}\rangle [ \theta ] = \cm(z)|\coc\langle \vec{m}[\theta]\rangle { -\!\!\!\!\!\rightharpoonup}\omega,\ ] ] because @xmath797 contains @xmath709 as conjunct , and @xmath804 has @xmath710 as component .
theorem [ full completeness ] now follows easily .
suppose that @xmath805 is not derivable .
then we obtain models @xmath806 ,  , @xmath807 by lemma [ l - comp ] and @xmath808 ] \!]}=\omega$ ] by lemma [ l - bohm ] .
this means that @xmath809 .    our explicit construction of the countermodels yields a by - product :    [ lowen ]    1 .
let @xmath1 be a proof and @xmath528 a logical behaviour .
if @xmath810 , then there is a countable model @xmath811 ( @xmath812 is a countable set ) such that @xmath813 .
2 .   furthermore ,
when @xmath1 is linear , there is a finite and deterministic model @xmath811 such that @xmath813 .
the second statement is due to the observation that when @xmath1 is linear the positive rule @xmath617 can be replaced with a linear variant : @xmath814{z|\coa\langle m_1 , \dots , m_m \rangle\vdash \bgamma , z:\coal\langle\bn_1 , \dots , \bn_n\rangle } { m_1 \vdash \bgamma_1 , \bn_{i_1 } & \dots & m_m \vdash \bgamma_m , \bn_{i_m}},\ ] ] where @xmath815 are disjoint subsets of @xmath444 .
we then immediately see that the proof search tree is always finite , and so is the model @xmath699 .
it is deterministic , since each variable occurs at most once as head variable in a branch so that all conjunctions are at most unary .
we have presented a gdel - like completeness theorem for proofs in the framework of ludics , aiming at linking completeness theorems for provability with those for proofs .
we have explicitly constructed a countermodel against any failed proof attempt , following schtte s idea based on cut - free proof search .
our proof employs knig s lemma and reveals a sharp opposition between finite proofs and infinite models , leading to a clear analogy with lwenhein - skolem theorem .
our proof also employs an analogue of the bhm - out technique @xcite ( see the proof of lemma [ l - bohm ] ) , though it does not lead to the separation property ( remark [ r - separation ] ) .    in hyland - ong game semantics ,
player s innocent strategies most naturally correspond to possibly infinite bhm trees ( see , @xcite ) .
one could of course impose finiteness ( or compactness ) on them to have correspondence with finite proofs .
but it would not lead to an explicit construction of opponent s strategies defeating infinite proof attempts .
although finiteness is imposed in @xcite too , our current work shows that it is not necessary in ludics .
our work also highlights the duality : @xmath816 the principle is that _ when proofs admit contraction , models have to be nondeterministic _ ( whereas they do not have to be nonlinear ) .
a similar situation arises in some variants of @xmath16-calculus and linear logic , when one proves the separation property .
we mention @xcite , where the authors add a nondeterministic choice operator and a numeral system to the pure @xmath16-calculus in order to internally ( interactively ) discriminate two pure @xmath16-terms that have different bhm trees .
however , in contrast to our work , the nondeterminism needed for their purpose is of existential nature : a term converges if at least one of the possible reduction sequences starting from it terminates .    in @xcite , the separation property for differential interaction nets @xcite
is proven .
a key point is that the exponential modalities in differential interaction nets are more `` symmetrical '' than in linear logic . in our setting
, the symmetry shows up between nonlinearity and nondeterministic conjunctions ( nonuniform elements ) .
it is typically found in theorem [ p - duphalf ] , which reveals a tight connection between duplicability of positive logical behaviours and closure under nondeterministic conjunctions of negative logical behaviours .
similar nonuniform structures naturally arise in various semantical models based on coherence spaces and games , such as finiteness spaces @xcite , indexed linear logic and nonuniform coherence spaces @xcite , nonuniform hypercoherences @xcite , and asynchronous games @xcite ( see also @xcite ) .    for future work
, we plan to extend our setting by enriching the proof system with propositional variables , second order quantifiers and nonlogical axioms . by moving to the second order setting ,
we hope to give an _ interactive _ account to gdel s incompleteness theorems as well .
we are deeply indebted to pierre - louis curien , who gave us a lot of useful comments .
our thanks are also due to the anonymous referees .    10    andreoli , j .-
: logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic .
* 2*(3 ) ( 1992 ) 297347 .
barendregt , h.  p. : the lambda calculus : its syntax and semantics .
north - holland ( 1981 ) .
basaldella , m. , faggian , c. : ludics with repetition ( exponentials , interactive types and completeness ) . in : lics .
( 2009 ) 375384 .
bhm , c. : alcune propriet delle forme @xmath817-normali nel @xmath818-calcolo .
publicazioni dellistituto per le applicazioni del calcolo * 696 * ( 1968 ) .
boudes , p. : non - uniform hypercoherences .
notes theor .
* 69 * ( 2002 ) 6282 .
bucciarelli , a. , ehrhard , t. : on phase semantics and denotational semantics : the exponentials .
pure appl .
109*(3 ) ( 2001 ) : 205241 .    curien , p .-
l . : abstract bhm trees .
struct . in comp .
* 8*(6 ) ( 1998 ) 559591 .
curien , p .-
l . : introduction to linear logic and ludics , part ii .
advances in mathematics ( china ) * 35*(1 ) ( 2006 ) 144 .
curien , p .-
l . : notes on game semantics .
manuscript ( 2006 ) .
curien , p .-
, herbelin , h. : abstract machines for dialogue games .
panoramas et synthses * 27 * ( 2009 ) 231275 .
curien , p .-
l . , munch - maccagnoni , g. : the duality of computation under focus . in : proc . of ifip tcs .
dezani - ciancaglini , m. , intrigila , b. , venturini - zilli , m. : . in : ictcs98 .
( 1998 ) 123 .
ehrhard , t. : finiteness spaces .
struct . in comp .
* 15*(4 ) ( 2005 ) 615646 .
ehrhard , t. , regnier , l. : differential interaction nets .
sci . * 364*(2 ) ( 2006 ) 166195 .
faggian , c. : travelling on designs . in : csl .
( 2002 ) 427441 .
faggian , c. : interactive observability in ludics : the geometry of tests .
sci . * 350*(2 ) ( 2006 ) 213233 .
faggian , c. , piccolo , m. : ludics is a model for the finitary linear pi - calculus . in : tlca .
( 2007 ) 148162 .
faggian , c. , piccolo , m. : partial orders , event structures , and linear strategies . in : tlca .
( 2009 ) 95111 .
girard , j .- y . : on the meaning of logical rules i : syntax vs. semantics . in berger ,
u. , schwichtenberg , h. , eds . : computational logic .
heidelberg springer - verlag ( 1999 ) 215272 .
girard , j .- y .
: on the meaning of logical rules ii : multiplicatives and additives .
foundation of secure computation , berger and schwichtenberg edts ( 2000 ) 183212 .
girard , j .- y . : locus solum : from the rules of logic to the logic of rules .
struct . in comp .
sci . * 11*(3 ) ( 2001 ) 301506 .
hyland , j.m.e . , ong , c.h.l . : on full abstraction for pcf : i , ii , and iii .
* 163*(2 ) ( 2000 ) 285408 .
lafont , y. : the finite model property for various fragments of linear logic . j. symb
. log . * 62*(4 ) ( 1997 ) 12021208 .
laurent , o. : tude de la polarization en logique .
phd thesis , univ .
aix - marseille ii ( 2002 ) .
laurent , o. : polarized games .
. logic * 130*(1 - 3 ) ( 2004 ) 79123 .
maurel , f. : un cadre quantitatif pour la ludique .
phd thesis , univ .
paris vii ( 2004 ) .
mazza , d. , pagani , m. : the separation theorem for differential interaction nets . in : lpar .
( 2007 ) 393407 .
mellis , p .- a . :
asynchronous games 2 : the true concurrency of innocence .
* 358*(2 - 3 ) ( 2006 ) 200228 .
schtte , k. : ein system des verknpfenden schliessens .
logic grundlagenf .
* 2 * ( 1956 ) 5567 .
terui , k. : ludics .
( 2008 ) to appear in theor .
in this appendix , we show a correspondence between the proof system for ludics introduced in [ proof system ] and the constant - only propositional fragment of _ polarized linear logic _ @xmath819 @xcite .
this will ensure that our proof system is rich enough to capture a constructive variant of constant - only propositional classical logic .
we recall the syntax of the constant - only propositional fragment of @xmath819 .
the _ formulas _ are split into positive and negative ones and generated by the following grammar : @xmath820 the linear negation is defined in the usual way .
sequent _ is of the form @xmath821 with @xmath822 a multiset of formulas .
the inference rules of @xmath819 are given below :                strict sequents will play a crucial role for the correspondence between @xmath819 and the proof system for ludics ( theorem [ t - llp ] ) .
the intuition , which we will formalize later , is that a strict sequent @xmath824 can be thought of as a sequent of the proof system of ludics ( omitting the information about designs ) of the form @xmath825 .
a.   positive subderivation : @xmath827 that consists of positive inference rules only , where @xmath828 is a positive formula obtained from @xmath829 by applying positive connectives , and @xmath511 .
for instance , if @xmath828 is of the form @xmath830 , there are two positive subderivations with conclusion @xmath831 : + @xmath832 b.   negative subderivation : @xmath833 that consists of negative inference rules only , where @xmath834 is a negative formula obtained from @xmath835 by applying negative connectives , and @xmath836 consist of formulas in @xmath837 .
for instance , if @xmath834 is of the form @xmath838 , then there is ( essentially ) one negative subderivation with conclusion @xmath839 : + @xmath840 c.   @xmath841-dereliction : @xmath842      the above decomposition motivates us to cluster the logical connectives of the same polarity into _ synthetic connectives _ ( @xcite ) .
consider the expressions finitely generated by : @xmath843 where @xmath75 ranges over the set of variables .
we write @xmath844 ( resp.@xmath845 ) to denote the set of variables occurring in @xmath846 ( resp .
@xmath847 ) .
@xmath846 is a _ positive synthetic connective _ if for every subexpression of @xmath846 of the form @xmath848 , @xmath849 and @xmath850 are disjoint .
for instance , @xmath851 is a positive synthetic connective while @xmath852 is not .
likewise , @xmath847 is a _ negative synthetic connective _ if for every subexpression of @xmath847 of the form @xmath853 , @xmath854 and @xmath855 are disjoint .
this condition is needed when we translate synthetic connectives to logical connectives of ludics .
we indicate the variables occurring in @xmath846 by writing @xmath856 , and similarly for @xmath847 . given a negative synthetic connective @xmath847 , its _ dual _ @xmath857 is obtained by replacing @xmath858 with @xmath859 , @xmath860 with @xmath861 , @xmath862 with @xmath863 , @xmath864 with @xmath865 , and @xmath841 with @xmath866 respectively , in each occurrence of symbol .
@xmath867 is similarly defined .
+ the _ formulas _ of @xmath819 are then redefined inductively as follows : @xmath868 where @xmath869 is obtained from @xmath856 by substituting @xmath870 for @xmath871 ( @xmath872 ) .
notice that when @xmath873 , @xmath874 can be any combination of @xmath859 and @xmath861 using @xmath863 and @xmath865 .
to each positive synthetic connective @xmath875 , we can naturally associate a set of inference rules as follows .
consider all possible positive subderivations with conclusion @xmath876 in the sense of ( i ) above .
to each such derivation @xmath827 we associate an inference rule : @xmath877 for instance , to @xmath878 , we associate two inference rules :      likewise , each negative synthetic connective @xmath880 comes equipped with a unique inference rule derived from the negative subderivation with conclusion @xmath881 ( see ( ii ) above ) .
for instance , @xmath882 is equipped with :      observe the asymmetry between the positive and negative cases here ; in the negative case , we leave the @xmath841-formulas @xmath884 in the premises .
these formulas are to be dealt with by the @xmath841-dereliction rule .            1 .
@xmath226 contains a nullary name @xmath521 and a unary name @xmath227 .
if @xmath226 contains an @xmath40-ary name @xmath26 and an @xmath497-ary name @xmath69 , it also contains @xmath40-ary names @xmath886 , @xmath887 and an @xmath888-ary name @xmath889 ( example [ linear ] ) .
given a negative synthetic connective @xmath847 , we inductively associate a set @xmath890 of negative actions of ludics as follows : @xmath891 notice that when @xmath892 , the variables @xmath37 occur in @xmath847 .
hence @xmath893 above is certainly a negative action , since @xmath37 and @xmath71 are disjoint sequences due to the definition of negative synthetic connective .
we finally let @xmath894 , where @xmath895 lists the variables occurring in @xmath847 . a positive synthetic connective @xmath846 is interpreted by @xmath896 .
for instance , when @xmath878 and @xmath882 , we have @xmath897 with @xmath898 this induces a polarity - preserving translation from the formulas of @xmath819 to the logical behaviours of ludics : @xmath899    to establish a connection with @xmath819 , we simplify the proof system of [ proof system ] by taking its _ skeleton _ , namely by omitting all information about designs . the resulting proof system , which we call @xmath900 , consists of two sorts of inference rules : @xmath618{\vdash \bgamma } {   \vdash \bgamma , \bn_{i_1 } & \dots &   \vdash \bgamma , \bn_{i_m } & ( \coal\langle\bn_1 , \dots , \bn_n\rangle \in \bgamma ) } \qquad \infer[(\alpha ) ] { \vdash \bgamma , \alpha(\bp_1 , \dots , \bp_n ) } { \{\vdash \bgamma ,   \bp_{i_1 } , \dots ,   \bp_{i_m}\}_{a(\vx)\in \alpha_0}}\ ] ] where @xmath488 , @xmath489 , @xmath573 and the indices @xmath620 are determined by the variables @xmath621 .
one can annotate derivations in @xmath900 with designs as in section [ proof system ] .
therefore the above theorem means that ludics designs can be used as term syntax for @xmath819 , as far as strict sequents and derivations are concerned ( although we have to verify carefully that the translation preserves the reduction relation ) .        1 .   to each action
@xmath907 , we associate the synthetic connective @xmath908 ( @xmath909 , if @xmath26 is nullary ) ; 2 .   to each logical connective @xmath910 , we associate the synthetic connective @xmath911 ( @xmath912 , if @xmath913 ) ; 3 .   to each logical behaviour , we associate the formula of @xmath819 @xmath914 4 .   to each positive context @xmath915 of system @xmath900
, we associate the multiset @xmath916 of formulas of @xmath819 ; 5 .   to each negative context @xmath449 of system @xmath900
, we associate the multiset of formulas @xmath917 .
it is routine to define an isomorphism between @xmath918 and @xmath919 ( resp .  between @xmath920 and @xmath921 ) in some natural sense .
moreover , the translation of a sequent of system @xmath900 always results in a strict sequent of @xmath819 .
we therefore conclude by theorem [ t - llp ] :