[PT] CSL'06 workshops and Ackermann Award

Hi, should we consider this for the next SD workshop?   -Alessio

                  CSL  2006  Call For Workshop Proposals

Computer Science Logic (CSL) is the annual conference series of the
European Association for Computer Science Logic (EACSL). The 15th
Annual Conference, CSL 2006, will take place in Szeged, Hungary,
from September 25 to September 29, 2006.  It will be organized by the
Department of Foundations of Computer Science at the University
of Szeged.

Workshops affiliated to CSL 2006 will be held before and after the
main conference, on September 23 and 24, and on September 30 and
October 1, 2006.

Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit proposals for
workshops on topics relating logic to computer science.

Proposals should include:

* A short scientific summary and justification of the proposed topic.
* Proposed format and agenda.
* Proposed duration.
* Procedures for selecting participants and papers.
* Expected number of participants.
* Potential invited speakers.
* Plans for dissemination (e.g. proceedings, journal special issue).

(Continue reading)

Rajeev.Gore | 4 Oct 01:36 2005

Re:[PT] CSL'06 workshops and Ackermann Award

You could also consider FLoC06 which will comprise many automated
reasoning and logic in computer science conferences:

But I can see why CSL might be more appropriate both from a
subject/topic sense and from a geographical sense ...


Alessio Guglielmi | 4 Oct 12:24 2005

SD06 in Wien?


Michel Parigot proposes SD06 in Wien, at the symposium celebrating 
the 100th birthday of Kurt Goedel: <http://www.logic.at/goedel2006/>. 
This will be towards the end of April 2006.

For those of you who weren't in Lisbon: this was SD05 
<http://www.prooftheory.org/sd05/>. It was one of the most attended 
workshops at last ICALP, and a very positive experience for all those 

Could you please tell me 1) if you would submit a paper and 2) if you 
would come anyway. If not, could you please tell me whether an 
alternative date/location would better suit you? Please answer very 
fast, because we have to start organising the next workshop soon.

Suggestions of any kind are very welcome, of course.

I will collect all the answers and report to Michel and on the list.



Alessio Guglielmi | 4 Oct 12:35 2005

Re:[PT] CSL'06 workshops and Ackermann Award

At 09:36 +1000 4/10/05, Rajeev.Gore@... wrote:
>You could also consider FLoC06 which will comprise many automated
>reasoning and logic in computer science conferences:
>    http://www.research.microsoft.com/floc06/
>But I can see why CSL might be more appropriate both from a
>subject/topic sense and from a geographical sense ...

Hi, there was this suggestion in Lisbon but then most people said 
it's too far away (lazy Europeans).   -Alessio

Alessio Guglielmi | 6 Oct 12:32 2005

Re: Red and blue (again)

Hello everybody,

I've read Dale's message and had a look at David's paper. I have some 
moral remarks.

1)  Dale asks whether non-canonicity of exponentials/dots is an 
artefact of the sequent calculus. In my opinion, it is not, and it is 
in fact something the sequent calculus does right. The only artefacts 
the sequent calculus creates are with conjunction and disjunction: 
specifically, when one maps connectives into meta-level conjunctions 
and disjunctions one gets artefacts. For example, an artefact is the 
equivalence between red and blue conjunctions (or disjunctions). It 
might be desirable, but it is an artefact.

My criticism towards the sequent calculus is that it is not a 
transparent syntax, for example because it creates this kind of 
distortions. (Of course, I'm saying this because my mission is to get 
rid of syntax and bureaucracy in proofs as far as possible.)

2)  Dale seems to imply that canonicity can be desirable or not 
depending on circumstances. If so, I agree with him, and I think that 
the best a syntactic formalism can do is to provide means for getting 
canonicity when desired and not forcing it otherwise.

In my opinion, the best one can do with the sequent calculus when 
trying to force canonicity is resorting to its only source of 
canonicity: the meta-level. The examples that Dale mentions seem to 
me to show this: one gets canonicity for exponentials by resorting to 
`tricks' with conjunctions and disjunctions (doesn't matter whether 
finitary/infinitary or multiplicative/additive). As far as I 
(Continue reading)

Lutz Strassburger | 11 Oct 16:11 2005

Workshop on Logic programming and concurrency

         ----    Call for participation and preregistration    ----

   			     Workshop on
   		  Logic programming and concurrency
   			as part of GEOCAL'06

   	    Marseille, France, 27 February - 3 March 2006

Logic programming, in the sense of proof search in sequent calculus,
has been used to describe the operational semantics of concurrent
computational systems in at least two distinct fashions.

In the process-as-term approach, process combinators and relations
between them (one-step, bisimulation, etc), are encoded as non-logical
primitives, whose axiomatization is provided by structured operational
semantics (SOS). Here, classical and intuitionistic logics are
generally used in such axiomatizations. Recent challenges in this
setting have been capturing both may and must properties of processes,
uncovering declarative approaches to link mobility, and exploiting
evident connections to model checking and game semantics.

In the process-as-formula approach, process combinators are encoded
directly as logical connective and the operational semantics of
processes is provided directly by an underlying logic, such as linear
logic. Such encodings have been most successfully employed to date
with asynchronous process calculi. Recent challenges here have been
finding ways to exploit the meta-theory of linear logic to provide
results about processes and declarative approaches to sequentiality
(Continue reading)

Alexander Kurz | 20 Oct 11:42 2005

CfP: AiML 2006

First, my apologies for multiple postings.

Although not at the core of the interests of this mailing list,
I believe that many of you could contribute to this conference.

All the best, Alexander


                    FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS

                   Advances in Modal Logic
           25-28 September 2006, Noosa (Queensland, Australia)

DEADLINE: 27 March 2006

Advances in Modal Logic is an initiative aimed at presenting
an up-to-date picture of the state of the art in modal logic
and its many applications. The initiative consists of a
conference series together with volumes based on the conferences.

AiML-2006 is the sixth conference in the series.

We invite submission on all aspects of modal logics, including
the following:

>  applications of modal logic
>  computational aspects of modal logics
(Continue reading)

Alessio Guglielmi | 20 Oct 13:08 2005

Conference announcements


as you know, Frogs is not moderated, what allows for some quick discussions.

If we make the address of Frogs available on the web, then we are 
almost immediately spammed and we are then forced to moderate it.

One risky thing to do is to cross-post conference announcements. I 
think it's better not to use Frogs for these. As a matter of fact, 
the PT list is a superset of Frogs, and is moderated, so it can 
freely be used for (relevant) conference announcements.

Just my opinion, of course.