We present a linearity theorem for a proof language of intuitionistic multiplicative additive linear logic, incorporating addition and scalar multiplication. The proofs in this language are linear in the algebraic sense. This work is part of a broader research program aiming to define a logic with a proof language that forms a quantum programming language.

This paper is meant to be a survey about implicit characterizations of complexity classes by fragments of higher-order programming languages, with a special focus on type systems and subsystems of linear logic. Particular emphasis will be put on Martin Hofmann’s contributions to the subject, which very much helped in shaping the field.

We formalize in Constructive Type Theory the Lambda Calculus in its classical first-order syntax, employing only one sort of names for both bound and free variables, and with α-conversion based upon name swapping. As a fundamental part of the formalization, we introduce principles of induction and recursion on terms which provide a framework for reproducing the use of the Barendregt Variable Convention as in pen-and-paper proofs within the rigorous formal setting of a proof assistant. The principles in question are all formally derivable from the simple principle of structural induction/recursion on concrete terms. We work out applications to some fundamental meta-theoretical results, such as the Church–Rosser Theorem and Weak Normalization for the Simply Typed Lambda Calculus. The whole development has been machine checked using the system Agda.

For every partial combinatory algebra (pca), we define a hierarchy of extensionality relations using ordinals. We investigate the closure ordinals of pca’s, i.e., the smallest ordinals where these relations become equal. We show that the closure ordinal of Kleene’s first model is ${\omega _1^{\textit {CK}}}$ and that the closure ordinal of Kleene’s second model is $\omega _1$ . We calculate the exact complexities of the extensionality relations in Kleene’s first model, showing that they exhaust the hyperarithmetical hierarchy. We also discuss embeddings of pca’s.

Systems of illative logic are logical calculi formulated in the untyped λ-calculus supplemented with certain logical constants.1 In this short paper, I consider a paradox that arises in illative logic. I note two prima facie attractive ways of resolving the paradox. The first is well known to be consistent, and I briefly outline a now standard construction used by Scott and Aczel that establishes this. The second, however, has been thought to be inconsistent. I show that this isn’t so, by providing a nonempty class of models that establishes its consistency. I then provide an illative logic which is sound and complete for this class of models. I close by briefly noting some attractive features of the second resolution of this paradox.

We propose an interpretation of the first-order answer set programming (FOASP) in terms of intuitionistic proof theory. It is obtained by two polynomial translations between FOASP and the bounded-arity fragment of the Σ1 level of the Mints hierarchy in first-order intuitionistic logic. It follows that Σ1 formulas using predicates of fixed arity (in particular unary) is of the same strength as FOASP. Our construction reveals a close similarity between constructive provability and stable entailment, or equivalently, between the construction of an answer set and an intuitionistic refutation. This paper is under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Our broader goal is to automatically translate English sentences into formulas in appropriate knowledge representation languages as a step towards understanding and thus answering questions with respect to English text. Our focus in this paper is on the language of Answer Set Programming (ASP). Our approach to translate sentences to ASP rules is inspired by Montague's use of lambda calculus formulas as meaning of words and phrases. With ASP as the target language the meaning of words and phrases are ASP-lambda formulas. In an earlier work we illustrated our approach by manually developing a dictionary of words and their ASP-lambda formulas. However such an approach is not scalable. In this paper our focus is on two algorithms that allow one to construct ASP-lambda formulas in an inverse manner. In particular the two algorithms take as input two lambda-calculus expressions G and H and compute a lambda-calculus expression F such that F with input as G, denoted by F@G, is equal to H; and similarly G@F = H. We present correctness and complexity results about these algorithms. To do that we develop the notion of typed ASP-lambda calculus theories and their orders and use it in developing the completeness results.

Probabilistic operational semantics for a nondeterministic extension of pure λ-calculus is studied. In this semantics, a term evaluates to a (finite or infinite) distribution of values. Small-step and big-step semantics, inductively and coinductively defined, are given. Moreover, small-step and big-step semantics are shown to produce identical outcomes, both in call-by-value and in call-by-name. Plotkin’s CPS translation is extended to accommodate the choice operator and shown correct with respect to the operational semantics. Finally, the expressive power of the obtained system is studied: the calculus is shown to be sound and complete with respect to computable probability distributions.

A closed λ-term M is easy if, for anyother closed term N, the lambda theory generated byM = N is consistent. Recently, it has been introduceda general technique to prove the easiness of λ-terms through thesemantical notion of simple easiness. Simple easiness implies easiness and allows to proveconsistency results via construction of suitable filter models ofλ-calculus living in the category of complete partial orderings: givena simple easy term M and an arbitrary closed term N, itis possible to build (in a canonical way) a non-trivial filter model which equates theinterpretation of M and N. The question whether easinessimplies simple easiness constitutes Problem 19 in the TLCA list of open problems. In thispaper we negatively answer the question providing a non-empty co-r.e. (complement of arecursively enumerable) set of easy, but not simple easy, λ-terms.

We extend the simply typedλ-calculus with unbind and rebind primitiveconstructs. That is, a value can be a fragment of open code,which in order to be used should be explicitly rebound. Thismechanism nicely coexists with standard static binding. Themotivation is to provide an unifying foundation for mechanisms ofdynamic scoping, where the meaning of a name isdetermined at runtime, rebinding, such as dynamic updatingof resources and exchange of mobile code, and delegation,where an alternative action is taken if a binding is missing.Depending on the application scenario, we consider twoextensions which differ in the way type safety is guaranteed. Theformer relies on a combination of static and dynamic type checking.That is, rebind raises a dynamic error if for some variablethere is no replacing term or it has the wrong type. In the latter,this error is prevented by a purely static type system, at the priceof more sophisticated types.

Various static analyses of functional programming languages that permit infinite data structures make use of set constants like Top, Inf, and Bot, denoting all terms, all lists not eventually ending in Nil, and all non-terminating programs, respectively. We use a set language that permits union, constructors and recursive definition of set constants with a greatest fixpoint semantics in the set of all, also infinite, computable trees, where all term constructors are non-strict. This paper proves decidability, in particular DEXPTIME-completeness, of inclusion of co-inductively defined sets by using algorithms and results from tree automata and set constraints. The test for set inclusion is required by certain strictness analysis algorithms in lazy functional programming languages and could also be the basis for further set-based analyses.

The logic programming paradigm provides the basis for a new intensional view of higher-order notions. This view is realized primarily by employing the terms of a typed lambda calculus as representational devices and by using a richer form of unification for probing their structures. These additions have important meta-programming applications but they also pose non-trivial implementation problems. One issue concerns the machine representation of lambda terms suitable to their intended use: an adequate encoding must facilitate comparison operations over terms in addition to supporting the usual reduction computation. Another aspect relates to the treatment of a unification operation that has a branching character and that sometimes calls for the delaying of the solution of unification problems. A final issue concerns the execution of goals whose structures become apparent only in the course of computation. These various problems are exposed in this paper and solutions to them are described. A satisfactory representation for lambda terms is developed by exploiting the nameless notation of de Bruijn as well as explicit encodings of substitutions. Special mechanisms are molded into the structure of traditional Prolog implementations to support branching in unification and carrying of unification problems over other computation steps; a premium is placed in this context on exploiting determinism and on emulating usual first-order behaviour. An extended compilation model is presented that treats higher-order unification and also handles dynamically emergent goals. The ideas described here have been employed in the Teyjus implementation of the $\lambda$Prolog language, a fact that is used to obtain a preliminary assessment of their efficacy.

Evidence is given that implication (and its special case, negation) carry the logical strength of a system of formal logic. This is done by proving normalization and cut elimination for a system based on combinatory logic or λ-calculus with logical constants for and, or, all, and exists, but with none for either implication or negation. The proof is strictly finitary, showing that this system is very weak. The results can be extended to a “classical” version of the system. They can also be extended to a system with a restricted set of rules for implication: the result is a system of intuitionistic higher-order BCK logic with unrestricted comprehension and without restriction on the rules for disjunction elimination and existential elimination. The result does not extend to the classical version of the BCK logic.