Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
REDUCTION
COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS
COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS
PROEFSCHRIFT
DOOR
1980
MATHEMATISCH CENTRUM , AMSTERDAM
PROMOTOR: PROF.DR. D. VAN DALEN
Dit proefschrift kwam tot stand mede onder leiding van Dr. H.P. BARENDREGT.
vooh mZjn oudesu
vo on. Ma/oLanm m Maa/itje.
l
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ill
REFERENCES 298
INDEX 313
SAMENVATTING 318
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis was written while I was employed half be the Mathematical
Institute and half by the 'Centrale Interfaculteit' of the University of
Utrecht, from 1975 to 1979. It was a privilege to be a promovendus in the
Logic department of Professor Dirk van Dalen, and those years will remain
a dear memory because of the enjoyable and stimulating working conditions
he created there. Apart from that, it is my pleasure to express my deep
gratitude to him for the general guidance of my work and for the numerous
detailed improvements that he suggested in an earlier draft of the text.
Henk Barendregt taught me the subject of this thesis and supervised
its development. I am very grateful to him for the close co-operation that
we often had, and for his admirable enthousiasm. At almost every moment,
day or night, he was willing to discuss X-calculus and to listen to my
proofs, including a sequence of false ones. I owe him a great debt.
In my pre-doctoral year (f74— *75) Henk Barendregt, Jan Bergstra (now
at the University of Leiden), Henri Volken (then at the E.T.H. Zurich) and
I had a research-seminar on X-calculus which was of special value to me,
since it provided a basis for the present work and since it was my first
encounter with mathematical research. I want to thank my fellow-members of
this seminar, and Jan Bergstra moreover for some joint work afterwards which
is related to this thesis.
I also want to thank my 'X-calculus colleagues' Roger Hindley, Jean-
Jacques Levy and Gerd Mitschke, for several useful discussions and encour
aging correspondence; and Jeff Zucker and David Isles for their stimulating
interest. And my room-mate at the Mathematical Institute, Albert Visser,
for numerous discussions on (e.g.) X-calculus.
I am very grateful to Professor Baayen who accepted this thesis for
publication as EMC Tract, and to Mr. Barning and Mr. Zwarst of the Mathe
matical Centre in Amsterdam; the latter for the multiplication of this
thesis. I am especially thankful to Mrs. Ria Riechelmann who typed the
whole manuscript with impressive speed and skill.
Finally, I thank my wife Marianne (even though she does not want it);
without her the work on this thesis would neither have been started nor
have been finished.
V
Title of this thesis. In the present work we are exclusively concerned with
the study of syntactical properties of A-calculus (A, for short), Combina
tory Logic (CL), Recursive Program Schemes, and in general, Term Rewriting
Systems with bound variables; especially those syntactical properties which
concern reductions. Hence the title of this thesis? Combinatory Reduction
Systems (CRS's) is the name by which we refer to Term Rewriting Systems
plus bound variables. The word 'combinatory' seems justified to us since it
captures the essential feature of these reduction systems: subterms in a
CRS-term are manipulated in a 'combinatory way'.
Motivation. There is ample motivation for the (in our case syntactical) in
vestigation of CRS's. The importance of the paradigms of CRS's, A and CL,
is well-known in Mathematical Logic (see also our historical remarks below).
Moreover, A and CL play an important role in the semantics of programming
languages; we refer to the work of Scott. One can consider A-calculus as the
prototype of a programming language; see MORRIS [68]. Furthermore, in theo
retical Computer Science, certain simple CRS's, Recursive Program Schemes,
and more general, CRS's without substitution known as Term Rewriting Systems
are studied. Then there is the AUTOMATH-project of de Bruijn, at the border
line of Computer Science and Foundations of Mathematics, which has as one
of its aims the computer verification of mathematical proofs. Here A-cal
culus plays an important role, too; we refer to the recent work of
VAN DAALEN [80].
In Proof Theory one is often interested in certain extensions of
(typed) A-calculus, such as AT © recursor R, iterator J, Pairing operators,
etc. All these extensions are covered by the concept of a CRS. It is inter
esting that one encounters in Proof Theory also CRS's which have a variable
binding mechanism other than the usual one in A-calculus: namely, in the
normalization of Natural Deduction proofs. Finally, let us mention that
there are recent foundational studies by Feferman in which certain syntac
tical properties of extensions of A-calculus are relevant.
We conclude that CRS's arise in a variety of fields and that the study
of their syntactical properties is worth-wile.
vi
Some history. We will now give a short sketch of the history of the subject;
for a more extensive historical introduction we refer to the introduction
in BARENDREGT [80], to the short historical survey in SCOTT [79] and to the
many historical comments in CURRY-FEYS [58].
Combinatory Logic starts in 1924 with SCHONFINKEL [24]: 'Uber die Bau-
steine der Mathematischen Logik'. Schonfinkel tries to reduce the num
ber of primitive concepts in (higher order predicate) logic; in particular,
his aim is to eliminate bound variables. His motivation: asserting e.g.
that Vp,q -fp v (pVq) for propositions, does not say anything about p,q but
only about -7 and v. To obtain his aim he introduces 'combinators' I,K,S, B , C ,
'defined' by lx = x, Kxy = x, Sxyz = xz(yz), Cxyz = xzy and Bxyz = x(yz).
(5 and K alone are sufficient, as Schonfinkel remarks.) Schonfinkel then
proves in an informal way that every formula A(x^,...,x^), with free vari
ables c {x^,...,x }, in higher order predicate logic (where quantification
over predicates and over predicates of predicates, and so on, is allowed)
vii
Chapter IV, finally, is not related to Chapters II, III, but considers
ABn-calculus. Via a new concept of 'residual* for £r|-reductions (for which
the lemma of Parallel Moves holds, in contrast to the case of the ordinary
residuals) we prove the Standardization and Normalization theorem for A3u,
thus solving some questions of Hindley. Here we profit from the concept of
'reduction diagram* and from our first proof of the Standardization Theorem
for A3 in 1.9. Also an extension of the result in 1.12 about cofinal reduc
tions is given.
xiii
CHAPTER I
1. LAMBDA TERMS
1.1. The alphabet of the A-calculus consists of symbols v^, for all i e I ,
brackets ( ) and X. From this alphabet the set Ter(X) of \-terms is in
ductively defined as follows:
1.3. Let x be some variable and M e Ter (A). Define <f>^(M) by induction on
the structure of M as follows:
EXAMPLE. (f)^(Ay .xx ((Ax.xx) (yx) )) = Ay.xx( (Ax.xx) (yx) ) . So (J)^ underlines some
x's in M; namely the free occurrences of x in M. Let $ (M) be the set of
x
those occurrences, and define the set of occurrences of free variables of
FV(M) = U $ (M) ,
xeVAR X
1.5. Contexts. Consider an extra constant □ and the set Ter(A{n}) as defined
in 1.1. The constant □ is intended to be a 'hole'; so a term e Ter(A{n}) is a
A-term containing some holes. We will only need A-terms containing precisely
one hole; they will be called contexts. We can also define them inductively
as follows:
3
1.6. a-reduction. Expressions which result from each other by renaming bound
variables should obviously be identified, for instance in calculus
x2dx = y^dy, or in predicate logic Elx.A(x) e 3y.A(y) . Therefore:
let Ax.A e Ter(A) and y £ Ax.A. Then we define a-reduction as follows:
(Ax.xx)(Aab.ab)
J
(Aab.ab) (Aab.ab)
Ab.(Aab.ab)b Ab.(Aac.ac)b
a ,V V W /'
B = Ab.(Ac.be)
??
so the step was erroneous.
This leads us to postulating a condition on 3-redexes, for the moment
only:
(Xx.A)B is unsafe if some variable y(^x) is free in B and A has a sub-
term Ay.C containing x as free variable.
(i) if (Xx.A)B is a safe (i.e. not unsafe) 3 -redex and (C[ ] a context, then
There are several other ways to get around the a-conversion problem; in
BARENDREGT [71] an almost similar method is used; another way is to define
[x:=N] such that a-reduction is built in to prevent confusion of variables
(but note that in [n:=N] we intended that variables could be 'captured'!);
a third method is to work, in one way or another, with arrows like above
(see also DE BRUIJN [72]).
Henceforth we will forget everything about a-reduction. Instead of =
a
we write just = for syntactical equality.
Let R = (Ax.A)B and R' = [x:=B]A. Then the step <E[r ] — —> C[R' ] is
3
called a contraction of R, and R' is the contractum equality.
We will often omit the subscript 3 and write just M N. When we want
to display the contracted redex R we will write M -- >■ N.
The transitive reflexive closure of — ► is denoted by — » . The equality
(equivalence relation) generated by -+ is called convertibility and written
as = 3 or = .
Note that from the definition of — -r* it follows that for all terms
p
A,B:
-* M .
n
5
(R = M — » m .
0 n
Note that such a declaration does not say anything about FV(A), unless ex
plicitly stated otherwise (as in 1.10).
ft ft ft ...
and this is the only possible reduction. For other terms it depends on the
chosen reduction whether or not the term 'normalizes'; e.g. abbreviating
K = Axy.x and I = Ax.x we have the infinite reduction
but also
1.9.2. DEFINITION.
(i) M has a normal form <=> 3N e NF M — » N .
Instead of 'M has a n.f.' we will also say:
M is weakly normalizing. Notation: M e WN.
(iii) M is strongly normalizing <=» every reduction of M must terminate even
tually (in a normal form).
E.g. Klft € WN - SN.
Here the question arises whether a term can have two distinct normal
forms. Fortunately this is not the case: if a term has a nf., then that
7
One simply takes F = Ax^.-.x^. A(x^, ...,x^); then (I) holds (even with =
replaced by — » ) .
We say that A-calculus satisfies the principle of ’combinatorial complete
ness1. (In the system CL of the next section this principle is less trivial.)
VF 3X FX = X.
VF F (Y ^F) « — YtF
8
Y = (Axf.f(xxf))(Axf.f(xxf)).
T
In a similar way everybody can construct his own fixed point combinator Tz
by requiring r = yy...y (n > 2 times) and proceeding as above, it is not
hard to see that every choice
y = Aa a .a f .f (wf)
1 2 n-1
An amusing way of deriving new f.p. combinators from old ones is men
tioned in BOHM [66] (or see CURRY-HINDLEY-SELDIN [72], p.156): to find a
solution Y for Yf = f(Yf), or equivalently for Y = [Ayf.f(yf)]Y, amounts
to the same thing as finding a fixed point of Ayf.f(yf).
Hence: if Y' is a f.p. combinator, then Y" 5 Y'Ayf.f(yf) is a f.p. combina
tor. In this way one gets starting with (say) Curry's Y, an infinite se
quence of f.p. combinators. Notice that Yt is the second one in the sequence
(One can prove that they are pairwise inconvertible.)
'xi — Ai(xi.....V
■Xn — > > A n (Xl....V -
PROOF. For n = 2: define <M> := Az.zM and the pairing <M,N> := Az.zMN, where
z is not free in M,N. Then <K> and <KI>, where K = Axy.y and I = Ax.x, are
the corresponding unpairing operators (write <K>A =: A^ and <KI>A =: A^):
Now to solve
X ---» A(X,Y)
Y ---» B(X,Y)
REMARK. For another proof, working also for Al-calculus (in contrast to this
proof), see BARENDREGT [76].
REMARK. The multiple fixed point theorem also holds for an infinite system
E of reduction ’equations' if E is recursively given. This requires the
deeper result of the representability of recursive functions in the A-cal-
culus. See BARENDREGT [71].
P.X„...X
1 1 n. 2i (xi.... Y p, .........p .Dm-
for all X ....,X e Ter(AP) . Here n. > 0 , and the Q. are AP-terms contain-
1 i i
ing some of the meta-variables X ,...,X (possibly none), but no other
1 ni
meta-variables. The X ,...,X must be pairwise distinct.
1 ni
Then the reduction system consisting of Ter(AP) and as reduction
rules: 3-reduction and the P^-rules (ieJ), is called a definable extension
of A-calculus. We will refer to it as '\P-calculus’.
(ii) Terms of the form P.X,...X (ieJ) are called P.-redexes; n. is the
i 1 ni i l
aritu of the P.-redex. Constants P. where i i J are called inert constants
i l
(they do not exhibit any activity since there is no reduction rule for them)
1.12.2. REMARK, (i) In Chapter III we will consider reduction rules without
the restriction that the meta-variables X „ ,...,X be pairwise distinct.
i ni
(ii) The reason for this terminology is that (if I is finite) by virtue of
the combinatorial completeness and the (multiple) fixed point theorem, we
can "solve" the set of "reduction-equations with unknowns P^"; that is we
can find A-terms P. and 3-reductions
l
2. A-calculus + {P} and PABC ■+ P(AC)B for all A,B,C. P can be defined by
e.g. P e YTApabc.p(ac)b.
Pa b c a P(a c O)
Qa Ax .x a PP
Pa b c d AC(PAx .x O)a P
11
where the are terms built up in the usual way from symbols in F, $ and
variables x„,...,x v.
1 P(4>i)
EXAMPLE.
1.14. REMARK. Since almost everything in this Chapter will prove to hold
for definable extensions, it will hold also for RPS's (anyway in this simple
version, where the only operation is substitution of unknown function sym
bols) . Almost all of these results for RPS's were obtained already in LEVY-
BERRY [79]; but in the sequel one finds some alternative proofs for some
of these facts (FD, standardization).
2. COMBINATORS
2.1. We will now introduce a system called Combinatory Logic, or CL, which
is closely related to A-calculus. The main difference is that CL is vari
able free. The CL-terms or combinators are built up from the alphabet
12
{(/)/I/K,S) as follows:
(i) lA -- ► A
(ii) /(AB -- ► A
(iii) SABC -- >- AC(BC)
2.3. REMARK. One may also take S,K alone as basic combinators for CL, since
I can then be defined: I = SKK. For, then IA = SKKa -- > Ka (Ka ) -- > A. For
several other bases for CL, see CURRY, FEYS [58].
SISSSII — ►
IS(55)511 — ►
S(SS)SII — ►
SSI (SI) I — ►
S (SI) (I (SI))I — >
S(SI) (SI) I — ►
13
A SII (SIT)----»
l I (SII) (7 (SIT)) — ►
VsiI(KSII))
(i) Ax.x »• I
T
(ii) Ax.A * Ka if x i FV (A)
T
(iii) Ax .AB S(Ax.A)(Ax.B) if the previous rules are not applicable.
EXAMPLE.
Ax.(Ay.A(y))B S (Axy.A(y))(Ax.B)
T I
B |
I I
Ax .A(B) -------?
CL 1CL
S (Ax .c Ca ]) (Ax .D)
1T
S(K(C[A]) (Kd )
Ax.(C[A]D /C(c [a ]d )— -?
where the context (C[ ] and the teinns A ,B ,D are arbitrary but such that x
occurs only free in B.
Let us remove the cause of this trouble by defining:
safe
2.5.2. PROPOSITION. Let A,B,C € A3 + CL be such that A -»> C and
lrCL
A — '~» b . Then there is a D such that B safe
T
Likewise for t ’.
15
I n a d ia g ra m :
safe |safe
3,CL B, CL
T
C ~" -- . -» D
is in fact one step. Since the proof is tedious but routine, we will sketch
it only.
In case the step A B is by clause (i) , (ii) (or (ii) ' for t ') of
the definition of (D follows easily since then (say for clause (i)):
(iii)
i!
18 T (iii) 8,safe
The completion of the diagram as shown, gives no problems, since the two
new 8-steps are in the easy case (a) w.r.t. t h e > -reduction from B' to
B". tCili)
The safety condition is easily checked. □
NR A -- — -- *> M(A ).
1 n CL 1 n
The last identity is due to the fact that M is a (meta) CL-term, so (con
taining no A's) a T-normal form.
Now take N = t N*, then t (N'A ...A ) = NA,...A and the result follows. □
I n I n
17
2.5.4. REMARK, (i) In the other direction, the translation is easy: let for
a CL-term M, M be the result of replacing I by Ax.x, K by Axy.x and S by
A
Axyz.xz(yz). Then obviously
M - o r * M' ^ •
3.0. INTRODUCTION
3.1. DEFINITION. Let M e Ter(A) and let A be some set of symbols, called
labels or indexes. Then Ter(A^) is defined inductively as follows:
f [ Ax ( x x ) ] ( y z ) )
37 4 4 20 7 8 20 4 2 1 0 237
such that matching brackets get the same label and an abstractor Ax gets
the same label as the 'corresponding' brackets. The (psychological) advan
tage is that Sub(M) is partially ordered (by c) while Symb(M), the set of
symbol-occurrences, is linearly ordered.
If A = E , we can identify 'label O' with 'no label'; thus we obtain
also partial indexings.
3.2. LABELED B-REDUCTION. Our first use of labels will be: tracing subterms
(or symbols) during a reduction. Consider the (3-redex M 1 above which served
as example, and view the labels as if they were firmly attached to the sym
bols. (So we can conveniently visualize the labels as colors.) Then it is
almost obvious what the labeled contractum of M 1 should be:
( (y z ) (y z ) )
20 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 20
19
The 'almost' is because it requires a moment ..of thought to see that the
outermost brackets must have label 20 and not 37 or 4.
It is now obvious how to define labeled ^-reduction, notation — --- > :
((Ax.A)aB)b -- ^ [x:=B]A
This 'reduction system', consisting of the set of terms Ter(A^) and reduc
tion rule 8^/ will be called \^-calculus.
R
3.3. DESCENDANTS. Consider M e A and a 8-reduction step iR = M -- y N. Let
I: Sub (M) -- y A be a labeling of M. Then, obviously, <R and I determine in
a unique way the 8^-reduction step <R = M
* I R
-- y N
J for some labeling J of N
(simply by contracting the 'same' redex R, but now also taking care of the
labels).
Now let I be an initial labeling, that is: labels of distinct subterm
occurrences are distinct. (So let A be infinite.) Define for all symbol oc
currences s,t € M and for all subterm occurrences S,T c M the following re
lation :
3.3.1. REMARKS.
(i) Let M -- y N. Then the redex R E (Ax.A)B has no descendants in N. The
same holds for (Ax.A) and the x's free in A.
(ii) Descendants of a redex are often called residuals. Note that resi
duals are again redexes.
20
PV-'An—^2(Al.....V
there correspond in (AP)^ the rules
a a a a
(...((P °A ) A ) Z ...A ) " -- »■ Q ( A A )
1 z n I n
for all aQ ,...,an e A. Note that in the RHS of those labeled P-rules no A -
labels occur (i.e. only the zero label 0 which is not written); except of
course the labels which occur in the (AP)^-terms substituted for the meta
variables A , ...,A .
1 n
EXAMPLE. If PABC -- v B(PAAC) is a rule in AP, then for all a,bfc,d e A the
rules ( ( ( A ) ' iB)bC)C >- B(PAAC) are in (AP)^.
3.4.2. REMARK. From this extended definition we have at once the following
facts:
(i) Like B-redexes, also P-redexes leave no residuals after their contrac
tion.
(ii) In contrast with B-reduction, when P-reductions are present n o t every
subterm N' c M' in a reduction step M -- »- M' has an ancestor N c M.
21
E.g. in Pabc -- ► b(Paac) where a,b,c are variables all the sub terms
P, Pa, Paa, Paac, b(Paac) of b(Paac) have no ancestors in Pabc. But if
N' has an ancestor, it is unique.
3.4.3. DEFINITION.
(i) Let Pa ....A -- ► Q(A,,...,A ) be a rule in AP. This P-rule is called
I n 1 n
proper if P "acts effectively" on all the A^,...,A^; i.e. for no
Q '(A,,...,A ,) (not containing the metavariable A ) we have Q = Q'A .
1 n-1 n n
E.g. PABC -- »■ B(Pa a )C is not a proper rule, but
Pa b c — ► b (Pa a c )
3.4.6. REMARK. The properness condition is necessary; for consider the im
proper rule PABC y Pb (PAA)C and now define the A-term P such that
PAB — » PB(PAA) for all A,B, then in the reduction PABC — » PB(PAA)C we
have PABC PB(PAA)C. So the induced descendant concept does not satis
fy the property that a P-redex after its contraction leaves no residuals
(and we will need that property later on, to prove the theorem 'Finite
Developments' for AP).
3.4.7. EXAMPLE. Consider in CL the rule (((Sa )B)C) -- »• ((AC) (BC) ) . Accord
ing to our definition 3.4.1, the subterms (AC), (BC) and ((AC)(BC)) in the
RHS have no ancestors in the LHS, or equivalently, the displayed brackets
in the RHS have no ancestors in the LHS.
The following defining reduction in A for the S-rule shows why this is
so: the brackets in the RHS descend really from brackets "hidden" in the S:
( ( ( S A ) B ) C ) =
0 12 2 1 0
( ( ( ( Aa ( Ab ( Ac ( ( ac ) (be) ) ) ) ) A ) B ) C )
0 12 3 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 7 6 5 3 2 1 0
( ( ( Ab ( Ac ( ( Ac ) (be) ) ) ) B ) C )
0 1 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 7 6 5 1 0
( ( Ac ( ( Ac ) (Be) ) ) C )
0 6 7 8 8 9 9 7 6 0
( ( AC ) (BC) )
7 8 8 9 9 7
3.5. UNDERLINING
((Xx(xx)) (yz)),
( (y_z) (yz) ) .
Let X = <Ter(X ), — r*— ► > be this reduction system. Note that there
B *
are infinite reductions, e.g. (Xx.xx)(Xx.xx) B -reduces to itself.
★
(ii) Now we restrict Ter(X ) to the subset of terms where only $-redexes
may be underlined. Let the resulting reduction system be
itit ^
where B is the restriction of B to Ter(X ) c Ter(X ).
(iii) Moreover we add a notational simplification to X , namely 'reduced
underlining'. Since a B-redex is determined by its head-X, it suf
fices to underline only that X instead of the whole redex.
The resulting system will be called X = <Ter(X), — >, in
— — p
words: underlined X-calculus, underlined B-reduction.
Instead of 'X_(-calculus) ' we will also say: 'X_B_(-calcuius) '.
ic kk
We will not need the auxiliary systems X , X anymore.
An example of a reduction in X_:
3.6. DEVELOPMENTS
HW HW
3.7.1. Ter (A ), the set of A -terms, is defined by
HW
(i) x,y,z,... e Ter(A )
HW HW
(ii) A,B e Ter(A ) => (AB) e Ter(A )
(iii) A e Ter(AHW) => (Ax.A) e TeriX™)
(iv) A e Ter(AHW) => An e Ter(AHW) for all n e 1 .
The multiple labeling is only an auxiliary device; when possible the fol
lowing simplifying rule will be applied:
.(n ,m)
(Mn )m
HW
for all M e Ter(A ) and n,m e HN . Here (n,m) = minimum {n,m}.
3 -reduction is now defined by
HW
(i) ax = A, ay = y for x ^ y
(ii) a(AB) = (aA)(aB)
(iii) a(Xy.A) = Xy.aA
(iv) a(An ) = (aA)n .
where a is the substitution [x:=Xy.A], a' is [x:=C] and ], ...[ ]... are
arbitrary contexts. (Ba , ca[ ] stands for a(B), a(C[ ]).)
It is a matter of routine to verify that the degree of the created Xy
redex in the RHS is indeed less than the degree of the Xx redex in the LHS.
(The first occurrence of n-1 in (Xx.A)n B -- > [x:=Bn 1]An 1 causes this de
creasing effect for creation of type I, II; the second for type III.)
EXAMPLE.
((Xy.A)6!)6 .
26
FIGURE
(iii) On the other hand, the redexes R' which d e sc e n d from a redex R in a
3 -reduction (R = M --- >■ ... --- >- M '
HW
U U
R - R '
have the same degree as R.
For a verification of (ii) and (iii) see LEVY [78], p.29-32.
HW
(iv) The system A_ in 3.5 can also be obtained from A . For, consider terms
HW
M in Ter(A ) such that some redexes £ M have label 1 and all the other
subterms in M have label 0; let an underlined term e Ter(A) correspond to
such M as in 3.5. Then 3 -reduction of such terms M corresponds precisely
HW
to a 3-reduction of M.
(i) O ct
(ii) a,3 € t => (a-*3) e t .
Now we do not work with the whole set Ter(AT ) as defined in 3.1, but with a
subset T of terms subject to the restriction that types must match in the
sense of the following inductive definition:
(i) L' c L
(ii) a,3 c L => a3 e L
(iii) a e L => a e L.
(m “ )6
for all A,B e Ter(AL ) and a € L. As before, a is called the degree of the
displayed redex. Also as before, it is easily checked that during a reduc
tion the residuals of a redex R keep the same degree as R. (See LEVY [78].)
There are two differences in our definition as compared to LEVY [75,78];
there underlining and 'overlining' are used (but later Levy remarked that
the latter is not necessary) and secondly, our labels are the mirror image
of those in LEVY [75,78],
3.9.1. EXAMPLES.
a K p p V\pp
(1) ( (Ax. (x I) ) (Ay.A) ) — --->■ — » ((Ay. A) “ I) — (cf. the similar ex-
HW
ample for A above.)
(2) This example is taken from LEVY [75] but in our revised notation:
f g e d k e j ibh cba
((Ay. (y z r ) ) (Au. (u u ) ) — ) —
Note that h(a) and f(a) are, roughly speaking, opposite in sign:
(*) m-h(a) < f(a) < M-h(a), where m = min (f(a.) I a. e a} and
l 1 i
M = max{f(a^) | a^ e a}. We leave the proof of (*) to the reader.
(**) Now we have for every f satisfying (i), (ii), (iii) above a homomorphism
from AL to A ^ , namely by replacing every label in a reduction in AL by
ZZi
f (a) .
30
PROOF. By using (*), (**) in the proof of (iii) <=> (iv) and noticing for
HW
(ii) =» (iii) that given a reduction in A , the reduction <R' obtained by
^ HW
adding a fixed n e HN to all the labels in <R, is again a reduction in A . □
4. FINITE DEVELOPMENTS
4.0. INTRODUCTION
FD for definable
extensions
(sect. 4)
(sect.5)
(sect.8)
V
<R 0 1
to each symbol s e a weight |s | £ U is asso-
dated. During the reduction (R,
every symbol keeps its weight unchanged.
The assignment of weights is such that the total’weight |m J (:= 1seMi Is |)
of the e (R (i = 0,1,...) decreases:
the reduction and the presence of weights does not affect the allowed re
ductions .)
4.1.4. EXAMPLE.
_ ,, 6 7w r,8 2or,..3
= (Ax.x x )(P y PPy )
le
M2 = P8y2PPy3 (P8y2PPy3)
IP
m3 = P(y2y2y2PP)y3y3 (P8y2PPy3).
4.1.6. ----------
DEFINITION. Let M1 be a —WE -term.
(i) Let R £ M be a 3_-redex. Then R = (A_x.A)B is called good w.r.t. I iff
|xI > IB| for every occurrence of x in A.
(ii) Let R c M be a P-redex for some P e P. Then R = Pa „...A is called
— — — I n
good w.r.t. I iff |P| > mlA^.-.A^I where m is as in Definition
4.1.1(iii).
(iii) M1 is called good if every (B_- or P-)redex in M is good w.r.t. I.
4.1.7. EXAMPLE. In example 4.1.4, the j^-redex nor the P-redex in M^ is good
w.r.t. the displayed weight assignment.
„ M 24 30 ,D18 2VTf 3x .
However, M^ = (Ax.x x ) (r_ y rry ) is good.
4.1.8. ------------
PROPOSITION. Let M e Ter(E).
— Then there is a good M 1 e Ter(E„).
— vv
PROOF. Let M = s^...s_^...s^s^s^ where s^ is the i-th symbol from the right,
and define the weight assignment I by I(s ) = |s_^ | = (m+1) , for i = 0 ,...,£.
Then, since
35
(m+1)1+1-1 2
= 1 + (m+1)+ (m+1) (m+1)'
(m+1)-1
we have
V " " V
Therefore M1 is a good E -term. □
—W
PROOF. It follows at once from the definitions that every step in E^ can be
’lifted' to the case where extra labels (in casu weights) are present. □
PROOF. First the easiest part of the lemma, (ii) . Let R be the redex con-
x0 I1
tracted in the step M^ -- »■ M^ and let R' c m ^ be the contractum of R.
I0
CASE 1. R is a 3,-redex. Say R = (Xx....x...x...)B. Since M^ is good, R is
good w.r.t. 1^, i.e. every occurrence of x is heavier than B, so
IR'| = |...B...B...| < |R|.
If there is no occurrence of x, also |R'| < |r |, since B disappears.
CASE 2. R is a P-redex Pa ....A . Since R is good w.r.t. I_, |P| > m|A....A |.
------ — — I n 0 — I n
Moreover, the multiplying effect of V_ is smaller than m. Therefore
IR* I < Ir I.
36
Hence
CASE 1. R £ Rq .
1.1. R q is a j^-redex and the or P-redex R is a subterm of its argument:
r_ e Pa ....A___A (l<j<n)
0 — 1 inU n
|B. or P C[R]
r, s Pa ...A'. ...A
1 — 1 >»i] n
c [r '].
CASE 2 . R q £ R
2.1. Rq is a ]3-redex, R is a j3-redex and R substitutes something in the ar
gument of:
R = [Xy.-- ((Xx.A(y))B(y))---!]C
|6 ' *0
R' = -- (Xx.A(C)
>B3---- „)B(C)
--- „)---
Now in R for all y in A(y) ,B(y) we have |y| > |c|, hence I B (y) | > |B(C)|.
Furthermore, for all x in A(y) we have |x| > |B(y)|.
37
4.1.12. REMARK. Note that the above proof yields the following bonus: Every
development of M e Ter(X) has at most 2m steps, where m is the length of M
in symbols.
4.2.1. DEFINITION. m
AB -calculus (m for 'many') is defined as AB-calculus,
but with the 3-reduction rule replaced by the rules (for all n > 1)
AP \= FD (I.e. AP J= SN) .
m 1 — m 1
4.3.2. REMARK.
(i) A3 | D P . For, let S contain x as free variable (S^x) and consider
M E (Ay.yy) (Ax.S (x)) -- > (Ax.S (x) ) (Ax.S (x)) -- >• S (Ax.S (x) ) = M' .
Next we will prove that A_3 \= DP, i.e. the disjointness property holds
for developments <R. Before we do that, we show that the finiteness of devel
opments (FD) follows almost immediately from this fact. This observation is
due to Silvio Micali (personal communication).
(k)
EXAMPLE. Let in M the inclusion relations between the A .-redexes be as
in the figure, where A,* means that the A .-redex => the A.-redex.
Then the color degrees are as indicated in the figure; e.g. the one
occurrence of A^ has c°l°r degree 5 since the A_^-redex contains the five
colors 0,1,2,4,5.
4.3.4. DEFINITION. Let M e Ag. On Sub(M) , the set of sub term occurrences of
ic kk
M, we define the following two relations c and c
(1) c is defined by:
*
(i) C c D => C c D (c is the strict (or proper) subterm relation)
(ii) if C, D are subterms of an underlined redex
(Ax..... D(x)....)(— C— ) such that x e FV(D), then C c * d
*
(iii) c is transitive.
PROOF. If C' c D' in virtue of clause (i), then it is easy to see that
•k
C c D in virtue of clause (i) or (ii).
If C' c D' in virtue of (ii), then M' = (Ax.— D'(x)— )(— C'— )—
and now there are 2 cases:
C c* D <=> C c** D.
41
k
(ii) c is a strict partial ordering (p.o.) on Sub(M).
(iii) Likewise for <=**.
PROOF. (i) =>. Suppose C c D and D is not a variable. (That D is not allow
ed to be a variable is because C c x is possible, but never C <=** x since
an x has no descendants after a substitution for x.)
Then in fact, say,
D E n 5 D 3 D C
’(ii) °1 (i) 2 (ii) (ii) k
for some chain of applications of clauses (i) or (ii) . Now, drawing a figure
of the term-formation tree of M and looking for a few moments at the chain
D, D ,. ..,C in it, it is intuitively entirely clear that there is a devel
opment at the end of which one has C' c d ' for some residuals C', D' of C,D.
The formal proof, however, is rather tedious since it involves a lot
of checking of simple details. The proof will be given using induction to
k, the number of 'steps' in the displayed chain from D to C.
k
CASE 1. Let the first 'step', from to , be a 13 -application. Let
R e (Ax...Dq (x )..)(..Dj..) be the corresponding underlined redex. Then af
ter contraction of R the original chain D^,...,C is transformed into a
chain D^,...,C as follows:
III
D =3 o (-T-.> denotes
o
where each (i)- or (ii)-step is carried over in a similar step except the
first step; so in the latter chain D^,...,C there are less (ii)-steps.
k k
CASE 2. The situation o D< => .v . ..C where D. f. x, the bound variable
------ 0 (l) 1 (n) 1 ^ ±
of the underlined redex R corresponding to the step ^ °2 '
k k ' '
Then also the first => -step becomes a =>,. -step after contraction of R
(n ) (i)
and the other steps stay similar.
Otherwise we have:
42
C
(i) (ii)
Xx.
1 i i
* *
D' = ... c
Do 3 (i)
etcetera.
*
SO, by induction to the number of => -steps in D => .. => C we are
(n)
through.
(In order to prove the assertions in 'Case 1' and 'Case 2 ', one has
to check the propositions
Xx *
—
A => B E x and A B and x f A B
(ii) (ii)
J 1 i j i 1
Xx | Xx | Xx | Xx | Xx | Xx |
i i V Xx^ V V i
m
A' 3B ' A' 3b A'
PQ
o
III
CQ
3 '
i.e. for all A,A',B as in the diagram, there exists B' as in the diagram.)
This ends the proof of (i) =>.
** _
(i) <=: Suppose C c D, i.e. there is a development R: M = -- >• — ■* ...
E M' and descendants C', D' c m ' of C,D £ M such that C' c d '.
Now use induction on the number of steps in <R. The basis of the induc
tion is trivial. Further, there are C", D" £ , descendants from C,D £ M^,
and having descendants C',D' £ M' such that C' c D'. So by induction hypo-
"k k
thesis C' c D'. Hence by Prop. 4.3.5 C c d .
(ii) Immediately. Notice that:
*
C C D the head-symbol of C is to the left of the head-symbol
of D.
kk kk k k
(iii) We have only to show that c is transitive. So let C c E c D.
*k'
k
Then E f x, hence we can apply (i) and get C c D. □
PROOF. Since c** is a strict p.o., we have for no C,C c** c. That is: DP. □
43
_ .. *
4.3.8. REMARK. In HYLAND [73] c is written as >. Lemma 4.3.6 is used there
to prove FD as follows. Define for each underlined redex R in M e A8_ the
degree d(R) by
d(R) = max{d(R') | R 1 3* R} + 1
(the R' are underlined redexes in M) and assign to M the multiset of the
d(R) for all underlined redexes R in M. This multiset is argued to decrease
(w.r.t. the well-ordering in Prop. 6.4.2) during a development. This argu
ment, however, seems incomplete since there is a complication due to the
k
fact that the p.o. c need not be a tree (see figure below), like c is.
The complication can be avoided however by using instead of d(R):
4.3.9. ---------------------------—
DEFINITION. Let M e —Afmt . Then for C,D c M:
(i) C c D =» C c* D
m
(ii) if C,D are subterms of an underlined redex
4.3.10. ---------
COROLLARY. —ABm i1= DP. □
i
3 i 3
__i
a
where the dotted arrows have the usual existential meaning, i.e.:
Va,b,c e A 3d e A (c a --- => c ------» d n— b) .
3 a a 3
Further, a commutes with 3 iff -- » ® — r-».
a 3
(2) The reduction relation -- > is called 'weakly Church-Rosser' (WCR) iff
--- »■ is weakly self-commuting:
I
i
1------------
i.e. Va,b,c 3d (c <--- a --- > b => c -- *> d « -- b) .
(3) y is called subcommutative (as in STAPLES [77]), notation WCR” 1, iff
---------------L
1 —
vli___ =___
■---------
i
4 -------
a — r*> a 1 =» 3b e A a -- *> b — -» a 1.
a3 a 3
5.3. PROPOSITION. Let A= <A, — >> be an ARS. Then the following are equiv
alent-.
46
(i) -- > is CR
(ii) — » is WCR (weakly self-commuting)
(iii) — » is self-commuting
<1
(iv) — » is WCR
(v) pp
(vi)
5.4. REMARK, (vi) is called 'property C' in NEWMAN [42]. Cfr. also the "Strip
Lemma' in BARENDREGT [76]. (vii) is often used as definition of the CR-
property.
In NEWMAN [42], HUET [78] a CR reduction relation is called 'confluent'.
In the following lemma some sufficient conditions for the CR property are
given.
5.7. LEMMA. Let A |= <A,-- »■ >. Then the following implications hold:
(1) (Newman) SN & WCR => CR.
(2) WN & UN => CR.
<1
(3) WCR => CR
(4) (Hindley, Rosen) Let -- »■ be - u . Suppose commutes with a_.
for all i,j e {1,2} (so in particular the are self-commuting, i.e.
CR) .
Then -- ► is CR.
(Analogously for -- ► = U ^ a_^.)
PROOF.
(1) See NEWMAN [42]; or for a shorter proof, HUET [78].
(2) Let reductions a — » b and a — » c be given. By WN b,c have normal
forms b' resp. c'. By UN b'Ec'. So
a---»b
| l
c--- » c 'Eb'
(3) Easy.
(4) Easy (see e.g. STAPLES [75]). D
5.8. REMARK. Note that WCR A CR, as is shown by the ARS defined as in Figure
1 of 5.9. Figures 2,3,4 give similar counterexamples. Now the following
question arises. First we define for n,m > 1:
<n
A 1= WCR ->>
i
iff
1 n ,m
<m
+
<n
where --- » denotes a reduction of at most n steps. (So WCR = WCR.) The
1/1
above mentioned counterexamples show WCR . A CR. Question: WCR A CR
48
for all n,m > 1? Indeed one can find for every n,m > 1 an A such that
A 1= WCR but A f/ CR. Figure 5 gives an A where WCR0 is satisfied but
n ,m A /2.
not WCR .
In fact, one can find all sorts of 'logically possible' counterexamples,
2
in the following sense. Call a set B c 3N+ closed iff (n,m) e B =» (m,n) e B
and (n+1 ,m) e B => (n,m) e B. (Here 3N+ = 3N - {0} -) Define
WCR(A) := { (n,m) e 3N2 I A |= WCR }; so WCR(A) measures 'how CR' A is.
+ 1 1 n,m
(Example: for A in figure 6 we have W CR (A) as in figure 7 of 5.9.) Obvious
ly WCR (A) is closed, and:
A |= CR «=»
o
WCR (A) = U + «=»
2
Now let an arbitrary finite closed B c be given. Then (we claim with
out proof) one can construct an A such that W CR (A) = B.
EXAMPLES. (In the following figures the direction of the reduction ar
rows, when not indicated, is always to the right and/or downwards.)
Figure 1
49
Figure 2 Figure 3
5 o o o o
2-i • • \ o °
-©■
3 4 J 5
w c r (A)
Figure 5 Figure 7
50
5.10. DEFINITION.
(1) Let A = <A,— >. A is consistent iff ^ A x a , i.e. not every pair
of elements is convertible.
(2) Let A = <A,-^-> > and B = <B,-^-* >.
Then A c B (B is an extension of A, or: A is a substructure of B) iff
(i) A c B
(ii) - > = restriction of -- >• to A. i.e.
A B
Va e A (a >b => b € A) .
B
5.11. THEOREM.
(1) Let A = <A,-- >■ > and let there be two distinct normal forms in A. Then :
A |= CR => A is consistent.
(2) CR => UN
(3) CR => NF
(4) Let A c B. Then: B |= CR =* B is a conservative extension of A.
5.12. DEFINITION.
- . Let A = <A,-- ► > be an ARS and a £ A. Let A_a = {b|a — » b}
and -- »- be the restriction of -- > to A .
a a
Then the reduction graph of a, G(a), is the ARS <A ,-- ► >.
a a
(In STAPLES [75] G(a) is called the 'local system below a'.)
51
Vb € G(a) 3a e <R b — » a .
n n
A |= CP <=> A |= CR.
bo H ao
the first common reduct of b and a „ in the sequence
bn+l n n+1 ^
5.15 REMARK, (i) The restriction to countable ARS's is essential for the
implication CR => CP. A counterexample for uncountable ARS's is obtained
by taking A = <A,-> -- <a,<> where a is an ordinal in which the ordinal
a) is not cofinal.
(ii) Let A = <A, »- > be an ARS and define K c A tD be a reduction chain
iff
Va,b e K (a — »b V b — a) .
Although the next two items are for use in Chapter II, we include them
here since they also apply to abstract reduction systems.
a -- ► b => |a | < |b |.
Notation: A (= Inc.
(3) A is well-founded iff there are no 'infinite descending -- ►-chains'
.... -- y a^ -- y -- ► a^ -- ► aQ . (Equivalently, iff
= -<-- is SN.) Notation: A |= WF.
(4) A is finitely branching iff for all a e A the set of immediate reducts
of a, (b e A | a ► b}, is finite. Notation: A |= FB. (In HUET [78],
FB = 'locally finite'.) Further, we write A |= FB iff is FB.
5.17. LEMMA.
(1) Ind & Inc => SN (Nederpelt)
(2) Inc => WF
(3) WN & UN => Ind
(4) WF & FB_ => Inc.
(2) Trivial.
(3) A finite reduction trivially has a 'bound', namely the last element.
So consider an infinite reduction a^ -- ► a^ -- > -- * • -• By WN there are
normal forms a' of a for all n. By UN all the a' are identical. Hence
n n J n
Finally, we will show that the property Inc entails (in the presence
of WCR) the equivalence of SN and WN, a topic which will interest us espe
cially in Chapter II. First we will prove a more general fact.
PROOF. SN & WCR => CR and CR =► UN, so only to prove: G(a) |= SN.
Suppose not so. Then there is an infinite reduction
ft: a = aQ -- >■ a^ -- ► -- »- ... . Let X = {c e G(a) | c — » b}. Then,
clearly, by hypothesis (2), ft must leave X eventually, i.e.
54
3k e IN Vj > k a ^ e X. (*).
Now define for c e X the natural number
By hypothesis (2), |c| is indeed defined. Note that for all c,c’ e X:
BASIS. Suppose ]c| = 0 . Then c is in fact the normal form b and (**) is
vacuously true.
5.19. COROLLARY.
(i) WCR & WN & Inc => UN & CR & SN
(ii) WCR & Inc =» (WN <=> SN) .
PROOF.
(i) Hypothesis (2) of theorem 5.18 is ensured by Inc.
(ii) Trivial from (i). □
56
5.20. The figure below gives a survey of several of the facts treated in
this section.
57
e.g.
/N /
\i
N
/
>
6.1.1. For the A-calculus the elementary reduction diagrams are of the fol
lowing types.
(i)
n ^ 0 times; for n = 0:
(ii)
3
60
(iii)
(iv) R (v) E
r 7 i
!------------- f
i
R i 1 1
3
Further, we have all the elementary diagrams obtained from these by re
flection in the main diagonal.
(i)
n > 0 times, in case R^ is a subterm of one
of the arguments of R ^ .
Likewise with 3 and P interchanged, if
R2 c Arg(R ).
(ii)
(iii) (iv)
Further, all the diagrams obtained from these by reflection in the main
diagonal.
The -- z--- steps, at which nothing happens, are called trivial or
empty (0), and serve to keep the diagram V in a rectangular shape. This
enables us to have the intuition of reduction steps in a reduction diagram
V as objects 'moving' or 'propagating' in two directions | and --- > , may
be 'splitting' on the way or becoming absorbed (= changing in a 0-step.)
This intuition will prove to be especially rewarding in the Bn-case, which
is dealt with in Ch.IV.
Note that in each case the redexes contracted in the side BD are
I
1
M That is, -- y -- ► M^_ extends to
1
ft
PL * M
±‘
' 4
v I, and -- y -- »- -- >■ M^_ extends to
'5
LI1 M. I3 I4 I5
5
M, -- y M -- y M. -- > M_ , and now
1 3 4 b
we must have I = I'. This is a tedious but routine exercise which will be
b b
left to the reader.
Since the extendability of e.d.'s V to labeled e.d.'s V1 holds for
AL , it holds also for all of the ’homomorphic images’ of AL , that is for
all the labeled/typed/underlined A-calculi we have encountered thus far -
except underlined AP-calculi (definable extensions of A-calculus). For the
latter a separate routine exercise yields the same result.
Since developments are a special case of underlined reduction in A-
calculus or AP-calculus, we note in particular that for developments we
have e .d .'s .
6.1.4. DEFINITION. Elementary diagrams having two or more 'empty' steps, are
called trivial.
6.2. NOTATION.
(i) In the remainder of this chapter '£' will denote a definable extension
AP of A, or a substructure of AP (w.r.t. £ as defined in 5.10). So I
refers for instance to A, Al, AP, AlP (as defined in 7.1.)
and CL.
(ii) ^denotes the underlined version of £, as defined in 3.5.
6 -3 - p r o p o s i t i o n . |= CR.
__ a
6.4. INTERMEZZO. Transfinite induction up to a) .
63
6.4.1. DEFINITION, (i) Let a be some ordinal, and let T be the set of all
n-tuples <3^,...,$n> (nelN ) of ordinals less than a. Let = be the equiva
lence relation on T defined by:
/Y .
V " % .....v-
6.4.2. PROPOSITION. The reduction relation -- ► onTF is strongly normalizing
a
In fact — » is a well-ordering of IT of order type a) .
such that y > y > ... > y . Assign to such a tuple the ordinal
Yl 1 -yk K
a) -n^ + ... + a) *n^ (a ’Cantor normal form'). The proposition now fol
lows by elementary ordinal arithmetic. □
PROOF. Consider M £ Ter (E_) and E-reductions <R^, <R as in figure 6.5.1. Let
the reduction diagram P(<R ,<R ) be constructed up to the displayed stage, by
the successive addition of elementary diagrams.■Compared to Proposition 6.3
there is now the additional problem of the trivial steps in the e.d.'s; a
priori it would be possible that they would make P(<R ,<R ) "explode", i.e.
64
Figure 6.5.1.
Figure 6.5.2
65
B C
Figure 6.5.3
(In the last two figures care has been taken of the constraint that an e.d.
can split at one side at most; so e.g.
------- >
V'
>. j'
is impossible. Figure 6.5.3 is the result of starting with the part bounded
by ABCDEF, reinserting an isomorphic copy of this part in the corner CDE,
and repeating this procedure ad infinitum whenever such a corner is formed.)
A,
6
A,
‘5
Now all the steps are proper reduction steps, so |a | > |b .|, i = 1,2,3 by
6 1
Lemma 4.1.10(ii). Hence the multiset corresponding to this stage of the
construction, < |A |,..., |A |, |B |, IB |, 1B |, |A |,...,|a |> is less than
1 5 3 2 1 / n
the previous one w.r.t. the well-ordering in Proposition 6.4.2.
Therefore after some stage in the construction, no nontrivial e.d.'s
can be added. Further it is clear that addition of trivial e.d.’s (which
have no 'splitting' effect) must terminate too.
Finally, each diagram construction ends in the same result. This is
evident by Lemma 5.7. (3), considering as objects: stages of construction,
and as reduction: addition of an e.d. □
In fact, we can obtain more information out of the proof of Lemma 6.5.
In order to state a refinement of this Main Lemma, we need the following
definition.
k
6.7. CONVENTION. Let M, ® be as in Definition 6.6 and M be M without un
derlining. Henceforth we will identify:
Then the construction of the Z-reduction diagram PC&q ,^) terminates (see
following figure) and the right resp. lower side M. — » is in fact a
complete development of 1R\ , the set of residuals of the redexes in 1R
i i
(i = 0,1) .
PROOF. Clearly (I) and (II) are equivalent formulations. We will prove (II).
(i) There is an obvious projection -- »■ namely replacing by
and P0 fPi'Poi bY — ’ S° an ,exPloding' Eg^diagram would give rise to an
exploding ^-diagram, in contradiction with the Main Lemma 6.5.
(ii) The steps in <R^ are contractions of labels 1 or 01, hence for the
propagated steps the same holds. Therefore in Mg — » only label 1 con
tractions can occur since in there are no labels 01. Likewise for <Rg.
(iii) Immediate by the fact that in M^ no label 1, 01 occurs and in no
label 0, 01. □
PROOF.
P(<R,(R')
Using the refined Main Lemma we can fill in block by block of the diagram
V ((R,(R') . Here we use the fact that a single reduction step is trivially a
complete development. □
69
6.10. NOTATION, (i) If (R^ ,6^ are two coinitial reductions, the right side
of ^((R^,^) is denoted by and will be called the projection of by
<R^. Likewise for the lower side:
<R /<R
r 2
6.11. REMARK. Even if (R is infinite and (R^ is finite, the reduction diagram
P((R^,(R^) and the projection (R^/tf^ are defined.
r->--------------------------
«2
\________________________
(Rl /(R2
The second corollary of the refined Main Lemma is:
-- 77"_N
( .dev.
c
%
0
0
c.dev p
O' 0
A P(«,{R})
0
6.14. REMARK- By 6.1.3 it is clear that the results of this section general
ize immediately to the case where L- or HW- labels or types, as in section 3,
are present.
7. CHURCH'S THEOREM
A well-known theorem in CHURCH [41] (p.26, 7XXXI) states that for Al-
calculus a term is weakly normalizing (has a normal form) iff it is strongly
normalizing. A corollary (p.27, 7XXXII) is that a Al-term has a normal form
iff all its subterms do. For A-calculus Church's Theorem fails as the term
(Ax.I)ft (where ft = (Ax.xx) (Ax.xx) and I = Ax.x) shows, since in (Ax.I) ft I
the subterm ft is erased. Intuitively, the reason that Al satisfies Church's
theorem is found in the fact that in AI there is no erasing possible. I.e.
in a reduction step every redex R, except the one contracted, has at least
one residual; in other words, a redex R cannot be 'thrown away', like ft in
the example above, or as in CL: KA<C[R] A. (In fact, we will prove in
Chapter II that Church's Theorem holds for all 'regular' Combinatory Reduc
tion Systems which are non-erasing.)
In this section we will prove Church's Theorem for definable extensions
AlP of Xl-calculus.
..A ,,p.
W V A 1.... Dn,
for some Q. (x, ,...,x ,y.,...,y ) e Ter (Al) such that FV (0.) => (x„ , .. .,x } .
i l n 1 n. i 1 n
(So all the meta-variables A ,...,A occur actually in the RHS of the reduc-
1 n
tion rule.)
Then the reduction system Al together with P and the new reduction
rules, is called a definable extension of Al-calculus. We will refer to it
as AlP-calculus.
7.2. EXAMPLES.
(i) AlP where P = {I,J} and with the rules Ia --»■ A, JABCD -- ► AB (ADC) is
a definable extension of Al.
(ii) . The set of terms built up from I,J as in (i) and with the same reduc
tion rules, is the reduction system CL^ (which is the non-erasing
variant of CL, as Al is the non-erasing variant of A).
CL^ is a substructure of AlP in (i) in the sense of Def.5.10.(2).
(iii) Al{P} with the rule PABC -- ► P(AC)B is a definable extension of Al,
which will play a role in the next section.
73
Suppose the lemma does not hold and (R/{r } is finite; say after N it is
n
empty (*). Assign to the head-A of R the label 0 and to all the other A's
in M the label 1. Then (R^ = M^ — » N^ is a development of A^-redexes (by
PM) .
Now consider the first step in M -- y M „ -- »- ... where a A -redex
n n+1 1
is contracted, say this is M^ -- y Mm+1* FD such a steP must exist!)
(R = M — »> N is again a A -development.
2 m m 0
74
CLAIM.
M
m m+1 / * 0.
Then we have a contradiction with (*).
____I
0
where R^ = R^.
Hence in 'm m+1
TT the bottom side is not 0, since in M
1* m
the A^-redex ^ the set of A^-redexes.
0
So the
* ---- »
'1
bottom side is P PJ — » 0^. This argument can be repeated for the next
1
e.d. P'
-nr+l 1
'iL.
PROOF, (i) <= is trivial. =>: suppose M e WN but M ^ SN. So there is a reduc
tion <R' = M — » N to a normal form N and there is an infinite reduction
75
<R = M -- ► ... .
By Lemma 7.4, <R/(R' = N > ... is an infinite reduction. This contradicts
the fact that N is a normal form, (ii) is an easy consequence of (i). □
7.6. REMARK. In A-calculus one can ask what happens in a step P >■ Q
which is 'critical' in the sense that P i SN but Q e SN. (So by Lemma 7.4
there are no critical steps in E £ AlP.) In BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP,
VGLKEN [76], Chapter II, it is proved that in such a step the redex R must
be of the form (Ax.A)B where x ^ FV(A), i.e. R erases its argument B. This
result is refined in BERGSTRA, KLOP [78].
Introduction. In this section we will prove that AL/P (for bounded P) and
HW t
its homomorphic images A and A have the property of strong normalization
(SN) , i.e. every AL#P-reduction (resp. AH^-,AT-) terminates.
(1) Such a proof can probably be given using Tait's method of (strong) com-
L HW
putability, although we have not seen yet such a proof for A ; for A this
x
is done by de Vrijer (unpublished) and for A (and even for the much stronger
t
system A + recursor R, also called "Godel'sT") this is done in e.g.
TROELSTRA [73]. Metamathematically speaking the method has the drawback of
using rather strong means, but it is amazingly slick.
(2) Another proof for AL (= SN is by a method due to D. van Daalen; see
LEVY [75,78].
x
(3) For A + R there is a proof of Howard, using an ordinal assignment up
to Eq , but only of WN. It is complicated but constructive, as opposed to
Tait's method. See SCHUTTE [77] §16. (Instead of R, Schutte uses the iter
ator J.)
x
(4) For A (+ numerals and some basic arithmetical functions: successor and
addition) a proof of SN was given by Gandy (unpublished) via an interpre-
x
tation in Al , typed Al-calculus.
(5) Here we will give a proof of SN for the stronger system AL also via an
interpretation in AlL , Levy-labeled Al-calculus. Apart from the idea of an
interpretation, there seems to be no resemblance with (4)..
(6) DE VRIJER [75] and NEDERPELT [73] prove SN for certain A-calculi (re
lated to the AUTOMATH project of de Bruijn) having A-terms as types.
(7) After this Chapter was written, we have elaborated the idea of this
section in a general setting; see Chapter II. There we use a method due to
76
The next lemma was independently proved by J.J. Levy (personal commu-
HW
nication). By Al we mean Al-calculus plus Hyland-Wadsworth labels as in
L P „ T
3.7; likewise for Al ' (Al-calculus plus Levy's labels, see 3.9) and Al
(typed Al-calculus, see 3.8).
8.1. LEMMA.
(i) Xim |= SN
(ii) AIL 'P |= SN for bounded P
(iii) AlT |= SN.
PROOF. We will prove (i); by Proposition 3.9.3 this implies (ii), which im
plies (iii) .
HW
Suppose that there exists an infinite reduction (R in Al , starting
with M. Now consider a reduction <R' of M obtained by repeatedly contracting
an innermost redex (Ax.A)n+^ B. Such a contraction does not multiply exist
ing redexes (since B contains none), and the redexes which are created by
this contraction, have degree < n+1 . (See 3.7.2. (ii) .) Let <R' be
M E M q -- ► M^ -- >■ ... and assign to M, (i = 0,1,...) the multiset of de
grees of redexes in M. (Def.6.4.1). Then, by our previous remark and by
1 HW
Proposition 6.4.2, we see that <R' must terminate, say in the Al -normal
form M .
n
Now construct the Al -diagram V (&,&') . (See figure.) By Lemma 7.4
(which holds also in the presence of labels; see Remark 6.11) it follows
HW
that <R/<R' is infinite. But M is a Al -normal form, hence <R/<R' must be
n
empty. Contradiction.
MEM a
0
<R' 0(<R,(R')
M
n <R/(R'
□
77
8.2. INTUITION. The above simple proof suggests that it might be profitable
to interpret AL in AlL .
Firstly, let us simulate a given reduction <R = M -- > ... in A-calculus
by a reduction <R' in Al-calculus as follows. Replace in M every subterm
Ax.A by Ax .[A,x ] where [,] is some pairing operator to be specified later.
Now consider e.g.:
in A-calculus: <R = (Ax. I) ABC -- ► IBC -- ► BC -- ► ...
In this way we ensure that the 'dummy subterms' A which are carried along
in [...,A] do not form an obstacle to perform the 'proper' reduction steps
which are copied from <R.
8.4. PROPOSITION. Every M e Ter(AP) has a V-normal form M', i.e. M' con
tains no P-redexes and M m '.
(ii) t (AB)
(iii) t(Ax.A)
y y
(i) k (x) = X
(ii) k (AB) = (k (A) k (B)
(iii) k (Ax.A) = Ax .k (A)
(iv) k (Ta ,B]) = k (A) .
But the propositions about k in the sequel are easier to prove using
PROOF. routine. □
8.8. PROPOSITION. Let A,B,C € Ter(Aj- -j) be such that A B -y* C and A is
in [,]-nf. (See figure.)
A in [,]-nf D
-------- ^
3 C
A E [l,M]N
Jk
B E IN NEC.). □
8.9. PROPOSITION. Let A e Ter(Ar -,) he in [, ]-nf and B,C e Ter (A) such that
L /J
A J— — — >■ C. Then there is a B e Ter(Aj- -|) such that A - y C.
A in C,]-nf D
3
A" ^ ^ (n) B.
k ’"’ k
(i)
Since A is in [,]--nf, by Prop. 8.7 also A is in [,]-nf (i = l,...,n)
81
V-
B
PROOF.
(i) routine.
(ii) immediately from (i). □
8.11. DEFINITION. Let Ter(Al^ ^) be the set of A^- -j-terms such that in terms
of the form Ax.A the variable x e FV(A).
Now define i: Ter (A) -- > Ter(Al^- -j) inductively by
(i) i(x) = x
(ii) 1(AB) E (i(A)i(B))
(iii) i(Ax.A) E Ax.[i(A),x].
82
(ii) [x:=A]x“ = a “
(iii) (A0*) B — - a “B
for all A,B,C e Ter(A^ -j) and a,3,6 e L. Reductions (iii) , (iv) which con
cern the manipulation of labels, are not considered as 'proper' reductions
we will execute them immediately whenever possible (hence we work in fact
w i t h --- »- - normal forms) . In this way we ensure moreover what we need in
(v) (see the last example in 8.2), viz. that a subterm [A,B] must be un
labeled.
Ad 8.6(1) Define: [A,B] —-— >- A for all A,B e Ter(A^ -,) .
k L tJ
Ad 8.6(2):
Define k similar as before. Hie reader may convince himself that the ex-
L
tension of the Propositions 8.7-8.10 to the labeled case is entirely
straightforward and unproblematic. We will only present the extension of i
to the labeled case:
■V
(R/(R'
----E7P---
N in Alp -,-nf
L/J
□
84
9. STANDARDIZATION
In this section we will give the first of two new proofs of the well-
known Standardization Theorem for AB-calculus. This proof extends (see 9.10)
also to definable extensions of A-calculus; but in 9.1 - 9.7 we will con
sider only X3-calculus, for notational simplicity. In Chapter IV the same
method will be used to prove the Standardization Theorem for X3r)-calculus.
In fact we will prove (see 9.8.3) a strong version of the Standardi
zation Theorem, due to LEVY [78]. To this end, in 9.8 Levy's concept of
'equivalence of reductions' will be introduced.
9.2.1. NOTATION.
(i) lmc (<R) is the le f t m o s t redex in M q that is contracted in <R.
(ii) p(<R) = (R/{lmc (<R) }, i.e. p(<R) is the projection of <R by the contraction
of the redex lmc ((R) .
(iii) If s,s' e M, then s < s' means: s is to the left of s'.
If S ,S ' £ M, then S < S' means: the headsymbol of S is to the left of
that of S *.
n
a possibly infinite sequence. It stops when there is no lmc(p (R) for some
n, i.e. when pn(R = 0.
We will show that <R is "the" standard reduction for <R; that is, <R is
s s
a standard reduction — ► ... —y which is moreover equivalent to (R in a
sense later to be specified.
The construction of (R^ is illustrated in the next figure. V^ is the
corresponding "standardization diagram".
V
s
ft
s < Lmc (p2(R)
p^(R
M3
Lmc (p^(R) 4
p ft
86
PROOF. Immediately by the Parallel Moves Lemma 6.12; let R in the figure
there be lmc ((R) . The head-X of R, X^, is clearly not multiplied in (R, since
it is lmc (<R) . Hence after the unique X^-contraction in (R, no X^ is present,
in particular not in M^. By PM, {r }/<R must be therefore empty. □
9.5. ---------
COROLLARY. The right side of Vs is empty. □
(i) every subterm of a given X-term has a label £ 2SI written as super
script.
(ii) the degree of a redex ((Xx.Aa)^B^)r is d.
(iii) indexed reduction is defined as in 3.7; for the application here we
need only to recall that contraction of a redex is allowed iff its
degree is > 0.
(iv) in an indexed reduction residuals of a redex with degree d, have
again degree d.
(v) Strong Normalization (SN) for indexed reduction: every indexed re
duction terminates.
(vi) every finite reduction <R = M_ — ► .. — »- M can be extended to an in-
0 n
dexed reduction, by choosing sufficiently large indexes for M^ and
'taking these along' through <R. Similarly for two finite coinitial
Now take an indexing for <R (by vi) . By (iv) lmc (<R) has the degree of
the residual of lmc ((R) which is contracted in <R; i.e. a positive degree.
Therefore the indexing can be extended to all of the diagram V( {lmc ((R) },<R) .
Hence the bottom side of this diagram, <R', is again indexed. And so forth.
In this way the indexing of <R determines a unique indexing of the whole
diagram V . Thus in particular <R is indexed; hence by (v) it terminates. □
s s
HW
9.6.1. REMARK. Instead of using SN for X to prove the termination of s<R ,
one can alternatively use FD (the theorem of Finite Developments, 4.1.11).
The proof using FD is somewhat longer; in outline it is as follows (for a
complete proof see BARENDREGT [80]).
87
(X q x . A 1)B*
Using this, and the fact that <R2 is a development, one can easily show that
also <R^ must be a development; hence, by FD, <R^ is finite. Contradiction.
Hence <R is finite. □
s
(i) <R and (R have the same first and last term, and
s
(ii) <R is standard.
s
PROOF, (i) is almost trivial: since <Rs is finite, the construction of the
-----
diagram V = V(6i ,<R) terminates, hence V has a bottom side, <R/(R . This
s s s s
bottom side is empty, for otherwise <R would have gone further, by its
definition.
(ii) Attach markers * in <R as described in Def.9.1. Suppose <Rg is not
88
standard. Let M' be the first term in (ft such that in the step M' — >- M' ,,
m s m m+1
a marked redex R is contracted. Let M* be the term in (ft in which the
n s
(unique) ancestor R' of this redex is marked for the first time. Label all
the A's in M' with distinct labels such that A^ is the head-A of R', and
n 0
extend this labeling throughout the diagram in the figure.
pn(ft
*
A = M'
0 n
EM'
m
Now A„ , the redex contracted in M' — »• M' ., is > Art in M', since
1 n n+1 0 n 0
was marked in M^ for the first time. Hence 0 i {i ,...#i^}, because other-
n
wise Aq or a A < Aq should have been lmc(p (ft).
By the PM Lemma (6.12), the contracted labels in pm(ft form a subset of
{i^#...#i^}. Hence no A^ can be contracted in pm(ft, contradicting the as
sumption that R = (Aq X.A)B = lmc (pm(ft) . □
9.7.1. REMARK. By the same method, one can also prove the 'completeness of
inside-out reductions', as it is called in WELCH [75] and LEVY [75]. Here
the definition of 'inside-out reduction' (not to be confused with 'inner
most' reduction) is analogous to Definition 9.1 of 'standard' reduction:
replace in Def.9.1 the relation < ('to the left of') by c ('subterm of').
So instead of 'freezing' all redexes < the contracted redex by attaching
the marker *, we freeze all redexes c the contracted redex.
Now we have:
Now we can prove the strong version of the Standardization Theorem for
AB-calculus:
PROOF, (i) <R_ (R is a direct consequence of the definition of e*. ; for in-
s L L
deed in the standardization diagram both the right side and the lower
side were empty.
n
(ii) Unicity. Suppose (R is another standard reduction with the same first
and last term as (R, such that ft <R^. Then, because (R ^ (R and because
0
^ is transitive, we have <R ^ <R .
L L s
Now suppose that
Ro Rk-1
fts \ +l
M
n
and
R0 Rk-1
M' ■/
Mo n
9.9. REMARK. All the facts in this section 9 generalize to definable ex-
->
tensions XP of X-calculus. In Def. 9.1: "frozen" P-redexes PA are marked
★->
as P A; 9.2 - 9.5 also extend immediately. At this moment, the proof of
Lemma 9.6 does not seem to generalize to XP, since we used X ^ |= SN and
for XP in general we have not yet a HW- or L-labeling available. However,
in Chapter II.6.2.7.15, we will extend Theorem 8.14, stating that
HW L P 1
X ,X ' |= SN, to a class of reduction systems containing the definable
extensions. Then also the proof of Lemma 9.6 generalizes to XP. Even now
we have the Standardization Theorem for XP, since in Lemma 9.6 we could
alternatively use FD (see Remark 9.6.1).
The notion of Levy-equivalence, the 'cube lemma' for XP, and the strong
version of the Standardization Theorem (9.8.3) also carry over, as one
easily checks.
92
(Xx.a)(Kb)
93
10.1.0. DEFINITION.
(i) (R ~ (R' <=> <R, <R' have the same first and last term. (HINDLEY [78']
calls such <R, <R' weakly equivalent.)
(ii) Let <R = M q -- ► ... -- »• M^. Then: <R <R' <=> <R ~ <R' & for every redex
R £ M q , the residuals of R via (R coincide with those of R via <R' .
(This definition is introduced by HINDLEY [78'], who calles such
(R, (R' strongly equivalent.)
(iii) (R <R' <*> <R ~ <R' & for every subteirm S c the descendants of S
via <R coincide with those of S via <R' . (This definition is proposed
by C. Wadsworth in private communication to H. Barendregt.)
(iv) <R <R' <=> <R ~ <R' & for every symbol s e M^ the descendants of s via
<R coincide with those of s via <R' .
94
10.1.1. EXAMPLES.
I2
(i) <R
W 1 I x and <R'
2 V V 0
-> I^x. 1 / 2 serve to dis
tinguish the occurrences of I. This example is from LEVY [78].
(ii) <R = K 1 (K2 AB)B K2AB and (R' = K^K^ABJB -> K^AB.
Ax
(iii) <R = (Ax. (Ay.A) x) B (Ay.A) B
Ilia
<R' (Ax. A[y :=x]) B
Here x i FV(A).
(iv) Let L be such that Lx — » L(Lx), to be specific:
L = [Aab.aa(aab)][Aab.aa(aab)].
— »
Then L(Lx) —jg-,» L(L(Lx))) in two different ways.
A0 A1 ft2 A 1 A2 A ! A2 A1 A2 A 1 A2 A 1
95
<R' <R"
10.1.2. THEOREM.
(i) pa pa
B (1 ) ~L W
11(3)
~S Tff ~s
10.1.3. REMARK. Note that all the equivalences considered in Theorem 10.1.2
have the following pleasant property:
Any two coinitial reductions ending in a normal form, are equivalent.
A1 A2
10.2.1.1. REMARK. Obviously, if (R = M ---- »■ M' ---- »- M" is an a.s. pair,
*2 X1
then M = ----------- where A , A^ are the head-A's of B-redexes and A^ < A^.
10.2.2. DEFINITION, (i) RED is the set of all finite reduction sequences.
(ii) The 'meta-reduction' *=> on RED is defined as follows:
Ai A2
(1) If (R = M ---- »• M' ---- > M" is an a.s. pair, then <R «=> <R' , where
<R' is 'the' standard reduction for <R:
(R' = M M".
\_______ _______ ^
n > 0 times
(2) If (R *=> <R', then <R^ * (R * (R^ *=> <R^ * (R* * (R^.
(iii) *=>>is the transitive reflexive closure of *=> .
« is the equivalence relation generated by «=>, called permutation
equivalence.
10.2.2.1. REMARK. Note the connection between *=> and the elementary diagrams
introduced in 6.1.1, as suggested by the following figure (where A^ < A^):
n > 0 times
97
-Y
------- ^
f
V
'
-------- *
A
(R'
Hence indeed <R = <R * ((R /<R ) m (R' = <R * (<R /<R 1 . □
1 2 1 L 2 1 2
10.2.2.3. REMARK. Let (R be an a.s. pair and let <R => <R' . Then <R ^ <R' , as
■ L
is evident from Remark 10.2.2.1 and the preceding proposition.
<R
CM
f---------:
----------1 r t
a
<R <R !
2 !
... 1
<R‘
a !
2 i
I
ft (R
2 2
------ _*
0 0 0
■> L -» •-
__ /
~^r~
fl =M_ ^ --- »
•t1 V___ y___✓
p > 0 times
a =a = m — -■■
0 n
X2 X1
10.2.3.1. REMARK. Note that <ft = I (I x) ---- ► I.x ---- ► x
------ 0 1 2 1
^ Jl J2
ft = " — ^ I 2x ~ X
is not a «=» -cycle, since we are considering reductions together with the
specification of contracted redexes. Hence <R^ ^ <R^ .
PROOF. Easy. □
PROOF. (i) Suppose that there is an infinite sequence ■=» *=> ... ,
let I be a labeling which is adequate for
=\ <
N*/ \1/
101
PROOF of (ii) . Suppose <R is not standard. Claim: then contains an a.s.
pair. For, let
k-1
M
« - Mo V i +i n
\j__ -- v-----
a.s. pair
where k is the least number s.t. -- >- ... -- > ^ + 1 **"s not standard. Then
it is not hard to see that M^_^ -- * y ^ + 1 is 311 a 's ‘ Pair-
From the claim it follows immediately that the endpoints of maximal
*=» -sequences are standard reductions. □
PROOF. Every *=> -reduction of leads to a standard reduction <R' for <R, by
theorem 10.2.5. □
We will show that one can directly read off a 'conversion', say
««=**=*>*=*...... f=* «=* <R' , from p ((R/(R,} ^
Here <R ,<R are the two given coinitial reductions; the 'conversion' (i.e.
1 1 *1
a sequence of -- >• and ■<-— ) TQ = 1 » 'reduces' to the conversion
via T.
1
I I
r--- f
1
10.2.7. PROPOSITION. Let (R^, <R^ be standard reductions and suppose that
(R ~ (R . Then (R = (R .
L 2 1 2
PROOF. This is Prop.2.3.2 in LEVY [78] p.43. We have also proved it, in
Theorem 9.8.3. (ii). □
(ii) We have just proved the uniqueness of •==» -normal forms (UN) . Together
with SN for «=> (Theorem 10.2.5(D) this yields CR (by Lemma 5.7. (2)).
10.2.8.1. REMARK, (i) Corollary 10.2.8. (i) and (iii) are due to LEVY [78];
see 2.3.4 Corollaire.
(ii) Theorem 10.2.6 is very close to Prop.2.2.9, due to G. Berry, in LEVY
[78] p.41, where it is proved that « = —T ; or Prop.I.2.7 p.25 in BERRY-
B L
LEVY [79] where the analogous fact for 'Recursive Program Schemes' is
proved. The theorem is even closer to a remark on p.25 of BERRY-LEVY [79]:
"In fact, it is possible to generalize this congruence only by the permu
tation lemma of 1.1.4". This remark amounts to: for Recursive Program
Schemes, ^ coincides with the equivalence generated by <=>, where <=> is the
symmetric closure of «=» for RPS's.
10.2.9. REMARK. Note the following correspondence between the present proof
of the Standardization Theorem and the proof in section 9: in the latter
proof we had the 'standardization diagram'
<R
V = VUR,(R ) =
s s
having the property that steps moving to the right (see the figure above),
do not split. Otherwise said, case (2) in the proof of Theorem 10.2.6 does
not apply here. Hence the above procedure yields not only a «=> -conversion
105
10.2.10.1. REMARK. By Theorem 10.1.2 hence also <R' ~ (R". So each symbol in
s
B traces back to a unique father symbol in A, regardless of the chosen
path. (For A3r)-reduction diagrams this property is lost, as we will see in
Ch.IV.)
10.3.1. EXAMPLES.
Notation: MI := Mil__ I(n times I); KI is short for Ax.I.
= 0303; 03 = Ax. xx.
H
<R . .. KI (II)
n-1
-- KI(III)
n-2
11
-- A ---- y B' C --
J----v----/
p>l times
II
-- <C[KAB] ---- ► <C[a ]
Now consider an <R' as in the above figure. Only finitely many subreductions
of <R' can be the contractum of an a.s. pair. (<R" is subreduction of
<R' <=> 3 <R -<R (R * <R" * <R = <R* .)
def. 1 2 1 2
In case (a) the original a.s. pair is completely determined by the con
tractum.
In case (b) there are just as many original a.s. pairs as B has redexes.
Hence (R1 can be reached by one «=> -step from at most finitely many <R". D
10.3.3. DEFINITION, (i) Let M e Ter(A). Then °°(M) will mean: M is not SN
(strongly normalizing), i.e. M has an infinite reduction. (Par abus de
langage: 'M is infinite'.)
(ii) If fl is a finite reduction, <R^ will denote the unique standard reduc
tion « <R.
(iii) [flT := {«■/«■ -►> <R}
(iv) A step C[KAB] y c[A]is called erasing. Here KA := (Ax.A) where
x i FV(A). The term B is called the argument of the redex KAB.
PROOF. Suppose 00 were decidable Then so was the property "M is SN", in
particular for Al-terms M. Hence for Al-terms M, the property "M has a
normal form" would be decidable; but is a well-known fact that this is not
108
10.3.5. DEFINITION. Let (R1 = M1 -- >■ ... -- > NJ be a labeled reduction. Then
(R1 is called special iff
PROOF. Routine. □
10.3.6. LEMMA. If <R *=» <R and <R* is special, then (R^ Is special.
PROOF. Suppose (R^ *=* <R^ and <R* is special. Corresponding to (i) , (ii) in
Def. 10.3.5 we have
(i) to show that (R^ does not erase infinite arguments. Suppose (R^ does
erase an infinite argument:
<R2 = (R * C[KAB] -- ► <C[a ] * <R', where “ (B).
Now there are three cases.
CASE 1. The displayed erasing step is not a member of the a.s. pair of
steps, which is 'permuted' in <R^ *=» <R^. Then <R contains the same erasing
109
step, and (R^ erases an infinite argument; contradicting the assumption that
(ft* is special.
CASE 2 . The displayed erasing step is the left step of the permuted a.s.
pair of steps. There are three subcases.
Case 2.2.
<r = ... - <£'[ (Ax.P(x) ) (--KAB--)] -- » <E'[ (Ax.P (x) ) (— A— ) ]
2
Ax
C '[P (— A— ) ] ► ... and
Ax
C '[P (— KAB— ) ]
^----------- y ------------ /
p>0 times
c 'Up (— a — ) ] — ► ...
Here p > 0 is the multiplicity of the occurrence of x in P(x). If p > 1,
then (ft, erases the infinite term B; and if p = 0, then (ft erases the in-
1 Ax 1
finite argument (— KAB— ) in the step --- ► .
Case 2.3. KAB is disjoint from the Ax-redex. Then (R^ erases B, trivial.
CASE 3. The displayed erasing step <C[KAB] --- »- C[a ] is the right step of
the permuted a.s. pair. Let the redex contracted in the left step of the
a.s. pair, begin with Ax. Again there are three subcases. Let R' be the
contractum of the Ax-redex.
(ii) To show: (1) I is adequate for <R_ , and (2) if B„,...,B are the arqu-
2 1 m
ments erased by R (so by (i) B, ,.. .,B e SN) and are their in-
2 1 m 1 m
duced labelings, then 1^,...,1^ are strongly adequate for B^,...,B.
The proof of (1) is easy. (Cf. the proof of Theorem 10.2.5 in which
the converse was proved: if (R^ *==> ^ and 1 is adequate for (R^, then I is
adequate for (R^. As in that proof, it is sufficient to consider the case
that <R is an a.s. pair. See the figure in the proof of Theorem 10.2.5.)
To prove (2), we distinguish two cases.
Case (a) . The step (R^ *=* <R^ is of type (a) , as in the proof of Proposition
10.3.2. This is the easy case, as an inspection will show.
Case (b) . The step (R^ *=► <R^ is of type (b) . I.e., the "contractum" of the
a.s. pair consists of just one step:
We have only to consider the steps (*), (**) in (R*, since the other steps
I I ^
of (R coincide with steps of <R .
^ I
The assumption is that the induced labeling I' of B. (in (R^) is
strongly adequate for B^. Now in the step (*) which reduces B_^ to B^, some
thing can be erased; say this is CJ . Then C is SN and J is strongly adequate
J X1 I
for C, since C c b . in (R. . Also it is clear that in the step (**) I" is
1 1 I" I'
strongly adequate for B^, since B| is a reduct of B_^ . This proves (ii) . □
f
10.3.7. THEOREM. Let <R be a finite reduction. Then: [<R] is infinite <=> <R
erases an infinite argument.
It
PROOF, (i) C<R3w = [<Rg]L / by Corollary 10.2.8, (i), (ii) . Hence the result
follows from the preceding theorem.
(ii) At once by the preceding theorem, since in Al-calculus there is no
T T I
erasing and in X -calculus there are no 'infinite' terms (i.e. X f=SN,
Theorem 8.14).
(iii) By (i) and Proposition 10.3.3.1. □
11
<R
s
112
Then ([R] , •=») can be pictured as follows (at each node there is a reduc
tion which ±'j indicated as a tuple in an obvious shorthand.)
113
11. NORMALIZATION
Vi 3j > i M.
lm
. ..
3 3+1
11.4. DEFINITION. Let <R = MQ -- > M^ -- >■ ... be a finite or infinite re
duction and R c m some redex in <R.
~ n
R is called secured in <R iff eventually there are no residuals of R
left (i.e. some contains no residuals of R ) .
11.5. LEMMA. Let <R = M^ -- >• ... be a qn-reduction, and let R c m ^ be the
----- qn 0 “ 0
leftmost redex.
Then R is secured in <R
qn
PROOF. Almost trivial: the first leftmost step in <R_^ contracts the unique
residual of R. □
PROOF. Suppose M has a normal form N. Let <R = M — N be the normal re
duction to N.
115
(ft ) i
qn n
By the preceeding lemma, and the Parallel Moves Lemma (6.12) for some n
the projection {r ^}/(<R ) = 0 .
0 qn n
By Proposition 11.3, [ (fl ) /{Rn }] * (<R ) is again quasi-normal, hence
qn n 0 n qn ^
R 1 ~ M1 ^ secured it-
Repeating this argument we get a k such that
<R / (<R ) =
n qn k 0,
and because M^ = N is in normal form, also
k n = 0.
(ftqn )./«'
12.2. DEFINITION. (ft is called secured iff every redex R in (ft is secured in
(ft. (I.e.: iff Vn Vredex R c (R(n) R is secured in ((ft) .)
“ n
(See also Definition 11.4.)
12.3. THEOREM. Let (ft be a reduction path in G(M) . Then: (ft is secured => (ft
is cofinal.
117
PROOF. Let the secured reduction <R = M -- > ... and an arbitrary reduction
<R' = m -- > ... -- y N be given. We have to prove that N — » (R(k) for some k.
Construct I?(<R* ,<R) (see figure). Now for some iQ , <R(iQ) does not contain a
residual of R^. Hence by PM(6.12): {Rg}/ig(<R) - 0-
By the remark after 12.2 also (iQ (<R) /{Rg}) * (<R) iQ is secured.
Hence for some i^: ({Rq }*{R1}) /±1 (<R) = 0. So for some k,(R'/k ((R) = 0;
i.e. N — » <R(k) . □
12.4. DEFINITION. Let M be a AP-term. Consider the set of all B-redexes and
P-redexes in M, and let N be the result of a complete development of all
those redexes. Then N is unique (by FD, Theorem 4.1.11 and Prop.6.3).
RO
PROOF. Let NL ---- >• M, --- ► ... --- ► M be a finite reduction, and let <R
----- 0 1 n
be a quasi-KG-reduction. Let A - ■■■--> B the first KG-step in <R. (See figure.)
KG
Now by PM(6.12) A — » C is a development of the residuals of R^, and
hence (since — -— >- is in fact a complete development of all the redexes in
KG
B) B — » D is the empty reduction. Repeating this argument, we find that in
deed M — » (R(m) for some m. □
n
119
CHAPTER II
own sake, we obtain FD and hence CR+ , PM? now a large part of Chapter I
generalizes at once to regular CRS's (e.g. Levy-equivalence of reductions).
In Section 5 we investigate the property 'non-erasing' and state a
generalization of Church's Theorem (1.7.5) for regular non-erasing CRS's.
In Section 6 we explore further conditions which ensure Strong Normal
ization for regular CRS's ? as in Section 5, an application in Proof Theory
is given. We prove here a generalization of Theorem 1.8.14 (A*^ |= SN, etc.).
Furthermore, Levy's method of labeling (1.3.9) is generalized to all regular
CRS's, together with the corresponding SN result. This yields a tool to
prove the Standardization and Normalization Theorem for a restricted class
of regular CRS's (viz. the 'left-normal' ones).
KZ1Z2 ~ V
but also of arity > 0, to allow a description of reduction rules involving
substitution, as e.g. in the rules for m > 1:
6m
_ = (XX1
1 • • -X m
m-Z0
n (X1
1 ' • • • 'X m
J )lZ 1 • • -Z m
m Vz
i..V
(see I.4.2.1). Here Z^ is m-air and the other meta-variables are 0-air.
Our universe of discourse in this and the next Chapter is the class
of CRS's; this class will be closed under the formation of substructures,
as defined for ARS's in Def.I.5.10. In fact that definition has to be
121
slightly extended, since in that case only one reduction relation is pre
sent. Therefore:
1.2. DEFINITION. The set Ter of terms of a CRS with the above alphabet is
defined inductively by
1.3. REMARK, (i) CRS's having an alphabet and terms as defined above but
without the metavariables of positive arity, without 1.2(ii) and without
the proviso in 1.2(iii), are known as Term Rewriting Systems (TRS's); see
e.g. HUET [78]. These are CRS's 'without substitution', such as CL.
(ii) The proviso in Definition 1.2(iii) is not really necessary, but no-
tationally pleasant; see Remark 1.9 below.
(iii) In [x]A the displayed occurrence of x is said to bind the free oc
currences of x in A. The definition of the notions 'free and bound variable'
is analogous to that in the case of A-calculus (see 1.1) . There are the
usual problems due to a-conversion (renaming of bound variables, see 1.1.6),
122
1.5. REMARK. ACZEL [78] employs a different notation, in which every term
is denoted by an n-ary function (n>0): F(A.,...,A ) instead of our FA, __ A .
I n I n
The two notations are practically equivalent; our notation yields more
terms, viz. also F,FA ,FA ,... are subterms of FA....A . (However, when
1 2 I n
A-terms are present one can use Ax....x . F(x,,...,x ) instead of F,
1 n 1 n
Ax_...x .F(A.,x_,...,x ) instead of FA., and so on.) We have preferred our
2 n 1 2 n 1
notation to conform with the notation in Chapter I.
Instead of our set Q of constants, ACZEL [78] uses a set F = {F^/iel}
of forms, each form having an arity <k^,...,k >, an n-tuple of natural num
bers (n>0). A form of arity < > (n=0) is called there a constant, a form
of arity <0,0,...,0> is called a simple form. Term formation in ACZEL [78]
is as follows:
1.6. DEFINITION. (1) The set Mter of meta-terms over the alphabet as in
Def.1.1 is defined inductively as follows:
(1) , (ii), (iii) as in Def.1.2, replacing Ter by Mter
(iv) .H , e Mter => Z^ e Mter, for all k,i > 0.
1
T( )
(iii) t (AB) =
1.8. EXAMPLE, (i) The terms in Example 1.4 have formation trees
X X
l \ 1
1 i
-
1 \
[x] X
i
i
—i
_>ii—
[x]
1 T
1
X X
V
1 1
1 1
X y
X [x]
/ \ 1
Y z
&
\ \
X X y y
1 2 0
I The meta-term (Xx.Z^(x))Z (yfZ ) has the formation tree
[l] z 2 (y ,z °
3)
ZJ (x)
t ((Cx]A)B)
that the scope of a variable x equals the whole subtree below that occur
rence of x in the formation tree.
1.10. DEFINITION. (1) A valuation p is a map Mter -> Ter such that
p (Z_^) = A(x^,... ,x^) , i.e. p assigns to a k-ary metavariable a term plus
a specification of k variables.
(2) The valuation p is extended to a map Mter -*■ Ter, also denoted by p, as
follows:
2 1 0
1.10.2. EXAMPLE. Let Z , Z , Z be resp. a binary, an unary, and a 0-ary
metavariable. Let H = Z2 (Z2 (Z^,tP) , Z*(Z^)) and let p be a valuation such
that:
1.11. DEFINITION. (-1) A reduction rule (in ACZEL [78]: contraction scheme)
is a pair (H^,H2) of meta-terms, written as -> H2 , such that
(2) If, moreover, no metavariable occurs twice in H^, the reduction rule
-*■ H2 is called left-linear.
(3) The reduction rule -> defines a reduction relation, which also will
be denoted as on Ter, as follows:
<c[p (h ) ] — ► <r[p(H2) ]
R ZjZ2 o —► zt
R z lZ 2(sz3 ) —
127
(iii) The reduction rules for 'Surjective Pairing', which we will consider
in Chapter III, yield an example of a non left-linear reduction rule (the
third one):
V fe o V “
V teo V -
V(VQz)(Vf)
[x] [y]
I I
Z^x) Z2 (y)
(v) The next example is from Proof Theory; see PRAWITZ [71], p.252. In a
normalization procedure for derivations (in 'Natural Deduction') we have
here the 'v-reductions' (i = 1/2) :
zo ^ 2] zo
♦i zl Z
2 c*.]
l
0
p
4|1 V <I>0
1 A .
T T zi
$ *
rule. Omitting the formulae <p.,ip which function as 'types' of the deriva
tions Z ,Z ,Z , these reductions can be written linearly as follows:
'O' r 2
(Likewise one can consider the &-, =>-, V-, 3- reductions in PRAWITZ [71]
p.252,253; these 5 proper reductions together constitute a regular CRS.
The vE-reductions induce an ambiguity however. See Def.1.14 and 1.16. for
the concepts 'ambiguous' and 'regular'.)
1.13. ----------
DEFINITION. If H, H' are meta-terms,' we write H e-a H' to indicate
that the subterm H 1 "occurs at place a" in H. Here the sequence numbers
a = <n^,...,n^> (k>0) are possibly empty sequences of natural numbers, de
signating the nodes in a tree x(H) as in the figure:
< >
< 0,1
T (H)
<0,1,0,0> <0,1,2,0>
‘•••<b,i,i,o,o>
So H e H' .
““<0,1 >
129
Then the fact that the r^-redex = P(Q(pZ)) contains as subterm a r^-
redex R = 0(pZ) is undesirable if one wants to have the CR-property.
(For R^ >■ A and also R^ >■ PB and there is no common reduct of A, PS)
(ii) A more subtle case of this kind of "interference" between reduction
rules is given by
Red(E) = {P -- ► A 8}
0 .9
R z
2
X Y
(iii) A reduction rule may also interfere with itself (example of HUET
[78]) :
if Red(Z) = (P(PZ) -- >■ A} and R = P(P(Px)) , then R -- s- A and R -- >- PA.
V
(2) If r^ = H^ -- ► HJ and r2 = H^ -- ► H2 are two reduction rules (possibly
the same) of a CRS, we say that r^ i n t e r f e r e s w ith r iff H ^ H2 *
1.15. EXAMPLES.
(1) Red(E) = {Iz -- »■ Z} is non-ambiguous, but Red(E') = (I(lz) -- »■ Iz} is.
(2) Red(E) = {(Xx.Z1 (x))Z -- * Z1 (Z2) (3-reduction),
(Xx.xx) (Xx.xx) -- *■ Xx.x}
is ambiguous.
(3) The following example is from ACZEL [78]. Let E have the rules:
3-r e d a c t io n
p a ir in g : VQ ( P z ^ ) z
1
z
2
d e f i n i t i o n by c a s e s :
R Q.Z. ...Z -- v z,
n 1 1 n ,1
R 0 Z, ...Z -- ► Z
n^n I n n
it e r a t o r :
131
to see that E is a CRS. Note that the infinitely many 6-reduction rules have
no metavariables. Clearly, E is non-ambiguous.
Z 1 + SZ2 ~ ^ S(Zl+Z2)
(Z1+Z2) + Z3 -- ” Z1 + (Z2+Z3)}
is ambiguous, in several ways. (Here Z^ + Z^ stands for + Z^Z^.)
(6) The following very familiar CRS E has constants 0 (zero), S (successor),
A (addition), M (multiplication), and E (exponentiation).
1.16. DEFINITION. Let Red(E) be non-ambiguous and let the reduction rules
in Red(E) be left-linear (Def.1.11.(2)). Then E is called a regular CRS.
1.17. REMARK. The definition of CRS's is, loosely speaking, the union of
the definitions of
Ad(i). Aczel's contraction schemes are less general then CRS's, since
there in a scheme H -- ► H ', the formation tree r(H) has typically the form
I.e. all the 'arguments' of F can only have the form (I),...,(V). Here (I)
(II) are special cases of the form (V) and (III) is a special case of (IV)
So the meta-terms H in the LHS' of contraction schemes in ACZEL [78] have
a limited depth (viz. 4). In our definition r(H) can be arbitrarily deep,
hence the concept of a CRS also covers that of a TRS.
ad(iii). Hindley's X(a)-reductions generalize the class of regular (i.e.
non-ambiguous, left-linear) TRS's. In a reduction rule H -*■ H ', Hindley
admits only O-ary metavariables (apart from the rule 3)•
Among Hindley's X(a)-reductions are the so-called 6-rules of Church.
These are of the form
A,___ A -- ► B
1 n
where the A^ (i = l,...,n) and B are closed terms and the A_^ are moreover
in 35-normal form. So they are reduction 'rules' without metavariables;
each rule has only one instance, namely itself. Moreover the set of these
rules has to be non-ambiguous. An example was given in 1.15(4).
133
1.19. DEFINITION, (i) Let E^, be CRS's having disjoint sets of constants
Then the direct sum E^ © E^ is the CRS having as alphabet the union of the
alphabets of E^, E2 and such that RedtE^eE^ = Red(E^) U Red(E2).
(ii) If E^, E2 are CRS's not satisfying the disjointness requirement in (i)
we take 'isomorphic copies' EJ and E2 (e.g. by replacing each constant 0
of Z by (i = 1,2)) and put Zj © Z2 := ZJ © Z^
Z1 © E2 |= CR => Z1 |= CR & E2 |= CR
but the converse does not hold, as we will see in Ch.III. If moreover E^,
E2 are regular CRS's, the converse holds trivially, by (i) and because
every regular CRS is CR (Thm.3.11).
(iii) According to Def.I .5.10.(1), a CRS E is consistent iff not every two
E-terms (including open E-terms, i.e. containing variables) are convertible
by means of the reduction rules. In particular, iff E x = y for dif
ferent variables x,y. Now we have
E © E consistent => E ,E .
1 2 1 Z
Here => is obvious, and to see let E^ be CL and E2 be the CRS having
constants P,0 and as only rules Pz — >- Z and Pz — >■ ZZ. Then in E^ © Z^z
135
When E^rE^ are moreover regular, then the converse implication does hold,
as a consequence of (ii) .
(iv) As for the property Strong Normalization, we remark that obviously
1.20. REMARK. In the study of CRS's we consider, next to the Term Rewriting
part, reductions involving general mechanisms of variable-binding. One can
ask whether this is necessary: it might be thought that the way of variable
binding and substitution as in A-calculus ('the theory of functional ab
straction') is sufficient, especially in view of a remark in CURRY-FEYS
[56] p.85,86 in which it is stated that "any binding operation can in prin
ciple be defined in terms of functional abstraction and an ordinary opera
tion" , and that "the theory of functional abstraction is tantamount to the
theory of bound variables."
A similar remark is made in CHURCH [56] §06, p.41: here A is called
the 'singulary functional abstraction operator', and it is stated that
"all other operators can in fact be reduced to this one".
Indeed it is not hard to see that for the notation of terms, the
operator A suffices. In CURRY, FEYS [56] examples like '(3x)X = E(Ax.X)'
are given to that effect.
As to reduction of terms, however, and the corresponding syntactical
questions such as the Church-Rosser Theorem, the Parallel Moves Lemma, it
seems to us that one cannot claim that the theory of bound variables is
tantamount to that of A-abstraction. Let us try to make this more precise:
*
(Z', Z" unary metavariables) then E will have instead of r the rule
r* = Pz1z2 -- h Az.Z2 (Z^z) (Z^,Z2 O-ary metavariables).
And now for terms <C [x], we have in E:
Az .(E2 [ C ^ [ z ] ] .
However, in general the converse implication does not hold in (ii) above:
E has too many reduction possibilities. So to prove e.g. the CR theorem
•k
for E it does not help, a priori, to have CR for E .
137
2.2. NOTATION.
a
(1) Instead of (aA) we will write A ? we used the notation (aA) to show
that the labeling can be seen as 'internal1, i.e. that a labeled combinatory
reduction is just another combinatory reduction where the labels are new
constants.
(2) Instead of A
0 we will write A. Hence Mter(E) c Mter(E.).
k ™
(3) Note that meta-terms Z^ (A^,...,A^) (i,k>0) do not carry labels? there
is no need for that, since the metavariables Z will be metavariables for
labeled terms in E^.
(4) Analogous to Def.I.3.1, we will write E^-meta-terms also in the form
A where A e Mter(E) and I is a labeling of the subterms of A.
i .e . 3^-reduction.)
2.8. REMARK. (1) Note that since the right hand side of r* = (H*-*H') e r^
is unlabeled, an r-redex p(H) has no descendants after its contraction.
(2) Descendants of a redex will also be called residuals.
(3) Note that, contrary to the case of A3, in general in a step M — >- M'
not every subterm N* £ M* has an ancestor N c M (i.e. a subterm N of which
N' is a descendant). We remarked this already for CL in Example I.3.4.7.
However, if N* has an ancestor N c M, it is unique, since I was an initial
labeling in Def.2.7.
2.12. DEFINITION, (i) Let E be a regular CRS and _E the underlined version.
If <R' is a E^ -reduction and (R is the E-reduction obtained by erasing the
underlining (i.e. replacing Q, by 0) , then we will call <R a (E-) develop
ment. Par abus de langage, we will call sometimes also <R' a development,
(ii) If, moreover, <R' terminates in a _E-normal form, <R will be called a
complete (E-) development. (Note that <R does not necessarily end in a E-
normal form; cf. the case for A3.)
2.13. REMARK, (i) The 'disjointness property' (Def.I .4.3.1), stating that
the descendants of a subterm are disjoint, and which was seen to hold for
one-step reductions in AB-calculus and even for 3-developments (I.4.3.7),
fails here at once: consider e.g. a rule
0[x]Z(x) -- ► Z(Z(I) ) .
(ii) O'DONNELL [77] states on p.89 (def.22') some axioms for 'pseudoresi
duals ' and on p. 23 (Def. 22) for residuals. These axioms require some
well-behaviour of his pseudoresiduals. The residuals which we have intro
duced above for CRS's do not fall under the scope of O'Donnell's defini
tion, since our residuals can be very much entwined even after one step,
(which is forbidden in O'Donnell's definition), e.g.:
(XxZ^x))0^ -► zf-(zf)
One of our aims in the next sections of this chapter is to prove for
regular CRS's £ that
fQ (x) = x, fQ (0 ) = 0
(iii) f ^ : Red(E) -- »■ Red(E^) is the map assigning to r = H — >■ H' the rule
fx (r) = H f0 (H1) .
(iv) Red(Ef) = (r) | r e Red(E)}.
3.2. DEFINITION. has the same alphabet and rules as E^. plus as extra
---------- fp ~ f
rules 3, -reduction for all k > 1 :
3.3. ------
REMARK, (i) E^
f and f^ are evidently again regular CRS's, since the
LHS's of the rules are unaltered.
(ii) Obviously, if in E: A -- ► B, then in E^n: A —— 7—> — -— » B. So in E__
1 r fB f j (r) B fB
the E-reductions are separated into a 'term rewriting par?' f^(r) and a
'substitution part' B .
—m
(iii) Note that E^ is in fact a TRS, by considering the variables x,y,..,
which do not play that role in E^ anymore, as new constants. (This remark
is meant heuristically and we will not prove it.)
3.4. EXAMPLE. (i) 'Frozen' A 3 -calculus, (A3)f r has as only rule (writing
Ax for A[x] in the LHS):
(Remark: We do not yet know that all developments of the sets S^ (i = 1,2)
are finite, nor that all complete developments end in the same term. At
this stage, we do not know even that there is a complete development of S^.
Later on, in Lemma 3.9 and Theorem 4.15, all this will be proved to hold
indeed.)
(ii) (iii) A
and checking that indeed the common reduct D can be found by reduction of
residuals of the redexes in question, as required by the property WCR+ .
h WCRt and that every TRS i|=WCRt
(in fact for that reason E was introduced), and we omit the actual veri-
£p
fication. □
With the aid of the concept E we will now first prove a weak form
£p
of FD for regular CRS's E (namely that E_ |= WN) and get CR as a corollary.
144
PROOF. Let M e Ter (£,.„) and let an underlining of the headsymbol of some
----- fp
set IR of redexes in M be given. Furthermore, let be a reduction of M in
which only underlined redexes are contracted. We have to prove that (R is
finite.
The proof is a straightforward extension of the proof of Theorems
1.4.1.11 and I.4.2.5, using the method of 'decreasing weights', and will
therefore be omitted. □
(Ox.Z1 (x) ) (Qy.Z2 (y) ) — * (Aa.Z2 (a))[ (Ax.Z1 (x)) (Qy. (Ay^_.Z2 (y ’))y) ]
a £ -normal form,
fp
145
The 'main proposition' says nothing more than that a 'separated* com
plete development of a set of redexes in a E-term M, where 'separated'
means that takes place via E , can be replaced by a complete development
ip
<R' in E of the same set of redexes.
3.8. PROPOSITION.
M' e Ter(Ef)
(3)
)
6 Ter(EfS
-dev.
e Ter(E )
rp
PROOF OF THE CLAIM. In Lemma 3.6, we proved that T._cn \= WCR+ . So, we can
------------------ r p
try a successive addition of the elementary diagrams (e.d.'s) shown in the
proof of Lemma 3.6, like in the proof of CR+ in 1.6.1, to find a common
reduct. That the thus obtained reduction diagram V 'closes' indeed, follows
from the fact that £ 1= FD (Proposition 3.7) considering that all the
ip
reductions in V are f,(r)- and 3 -developments.
1 —m
Finally, by the construction of V and properties of the e.d.'s it is
obvious that the f^ (r)-development M" — » M"' thus obtained is a development
of residuals of the original f^(r)-redex in M.
M" e Ter(E) by a complete development of the r-redexes which are the resi
duals of the original f^(r)-redex in M.
M M'
(5) Finally we can prove the proposition. Let M e Ter(E), M' e Ter(E )
ip
and M" € Ter(E) be given as in the statement to prove:
Then apply the proposition above to get a complete development M — » M" now
taking place in E. □
where it is routine to check that IR'^ , as defined above, equals IR^ , the
set of residuals of after contraction of , and likewise with 1,2 in
terchanged . □
150
V
E
f3
01
M( M4
1 12
M„
Mi
f the auxiliary di
of diagram V , the construction of V follows by
M' a projection (using Proposition 3.8) of the construction of V
M01
as in the proof of the preceding Lemma.
4.2. NOTATION, (i) Instead of PAB we write [A,B]. The subterm B is called
the memory part of [A,B].
(ii) [A,B ,...,B ] := [[A,B ,...,B ] ,B
1 n+1 I n n+1
(iii) If t = B ,...,B we will sometimes write A^- for [A,B], when it is
I n B
typographically more convenient; we will even employ both notations simul
taneously in one term, as e.g. in [A,Bc ],
(iv) If H e Mter(E), then *H e Mter(Er -,) is the result of replacing H's
* L 'J
head symbol Q. by 0 .
Iz [Z,I*Z].
(This is done not only for the sake of an uniform description, but also to
make Er increasing; see Prop.4.9 below.)
which gives the reductions AgC — » (AC)g-; this was also done in 1.8.5. Now
consider e.g. the following in E:
KVqC(VRB) ► Vq(Vkb ) ► A.
Then will give rise to the following imitation in Ej- -j (by way of il
lustration we employ the [,] - as well as the subscript notation):
K V 0C ( V AB) ►
IV0.K*Voc W > * b ) = V 0 K*VoCW m )
lV0 (.Vm) ,K*V0cl = (V0 (Vr s ) )k*V q C ---- ►
C[A,P0(PftB)],K V 0cl = &p*(VAB)rK*V0c ’
Note how in the shift step the memorized subterm K*VqC, which is affixed
to the head symbol Vq of the redex Vq(Vab ) , is shifted 'out of* that redex.
153
(iii) But this is not yet enough, because memorized parts affixed to
'deeper' subterms in a redex cannot be shifted out of the redex. For, in
order to imitate the following reduction in E: •
V0(IKVCAB) --- ►
V 0 (KVc a b ) --- ►
V0(Vab ) --- ►
A
V 0 (1KV c r b ) --- ►
P o t C ^ I ^ U c a B ) ----r ^ r -- »
u shift
Z>0([KPc a b ,I*K]) ---- ►
V 0(aV,K*Vclm,l*KJ) sh.£t »
Ia , V 0 (Vk b )K *p C r I * K l
(Note: one should not confuse V q (Vk B)-+ and (Vq (#AB))j .)
This motivates the next definition:
4.4. DEFINITION, (i) On Mter(E^- -|) we define the ’forgetful' reduction rule
(as in Def.I.8.6):
k = Czlfz2]
V
HJ — ► [H2 ,*(H’)]
Requirements (3) and (4) are merely technical; a motivation will follow
soon (in 4.6.(4)).
(ii) Now we can define
Red (E r n) = U rf u {shift}.
L,J reRed(E) L'J
h’ = Rl0,zQlz1z2 ->-lz1,R*L0,zQlz1z2l
will be in Red(Ej- -j) , where ZQ = zQ3“ -ZQm (mS:0) » zi ' Z 2 are pairwise dis-
tinct.
(2) Let E be CL ® Pairing, as in 4.3. Then we have in E the rules
cj
(among others):
155
Z Z'
(3) Let E = A3 (-calculus) . Then (A3)r has besides 'shift* as only rule:
L /J
where Ax.Z^(x) is written for A([x]Z^(x)) (In fact this is not quite true:
due to our inductive definition of Ter(E), in this case also A and [x]Z^(x)
are subterms of A([x]Z^(x)). Hence we should have in (A3)j- -j also a rule
r' = A([x]Z (x))^Z -- y [z (Z ),...]. But the definition of Ter(E) can be
1 Z 2 1 2
easily adapted such that it conforms to the usual one for A3-terms, thus
excluding the unnecessary rule r'.)
(4) Given a rule, say, r = Kz^Z2 --y Z^ in E, there is no need to include
in Red(Er -,) rules where the meta-variables are expanded:
K[Z ,Z][Z,Z'] -- y [Z ,... ] since in Er the meta-variables Z ,Z in
1 2 ^ 1 L,J 2
Kz Z2 -- >■ lZ^,K ziZ2 ^ ran<3e already over terms of the form [A,B].
Also there is no need to include the rule [KZ^Z2 ,Z] --- y [Z^,...]
since the LHS is merely a context of Kz^Z2 .
(Note that the 'forgetful* rule k i Red(Er ; otherwise we would have am-
biguity, since e.g. k and 'shift' interfere.) □
-^c,] = f e d •
(Xx.Z1 (x))Z2
VV
Red(E)
J0Z1Z2 — > Z2
J ( S Z 0 ) Z 1Z2 ~ 21 (JV l Z2>
(Xx.Z1 (x))Z2
W
Red(E) =
1°Z1Z2 ~ * Z2
J(SZ0)Z1Z2 - Zl (JV l Z2>
M N =» |M | < |N |
PROOF. We will not spell out the details, since the situation is very much
analogous to that of 1.8. Sketch of the proof: suppose E SN, and let
<R = M q -- ► M^ > ... be an infinite reduction in E . Now it is easy to see
that <R can be mimicked in the following sense:
Now we are ready to prove one of the main theorems of this chapter:
E |= SN.
h.i 1“ m
158
(Thm.3.11, Prop.4.7)
h.i h CR
(Thm.I.5.11.(2))
(Prop. 4.9)
(Lemma 4.10)
\y
T. |= SN
Alternative proof.
= WN (hypothesis) = SN = > Z
' ~~ .rc : ^
!
1
1.5.19.(i) (4.10)
w
= Inc (Prop.4.9)
1
1
—1
—1
n
4.12. REMARK. The main idea in this proof is due to NEDERPELT [73], where
(essentially) the first proof is given for a special case, namely a 'typed*
A-calculus which arose from the AUTOMATH-project of de Bruijn (Eindhoven).
159
The properties Inc, Ind are not explicitly mentioned there. Instead of re
ductions r^- -j Nederpelt has 'B^-reduction' (where 'scars' of earlier re
ductions are retained, as Nederpelt puts it); in our notation (forgetting
Nederpelts types) it would read
DEFINITION. Let A= <A, >and B = <B, -g->- > be ARS's. Let i: A ----*B
and k : B -- »• A be maps such that
(i) k © i = id^
, i.e. Vp,q e A Vr e B 3s e B
(r — ■ p — q => r B >s q)
160
HW HW
In 1.8, A,B are X resp. Xlr i is as defined in Def.I.8.11 and k
I./J
as in Def.1.8.6; and M — N iff M — r-* L N for some L such that N
B p
is the [,3-normal form of L. So we have a situation as in the diagram
(where A,B are as in the definition above):
Furthermore, SN for the associate Xl^- -j was easy to prove since Xl^- -j |= NE
(non-erasing; see Section 1.7 and Section 5 below).
In Theorem 4.11, A and B are regular £ resp. -j, i is the inclusion
map, k is as before and M N iff M L --- » N for some
B rC/]
r e Red(E) and some L such
such that N is the L ,]-normal form of L. So the sit-
uation is as in the diagram:
Here SN for the associate E^- -j was easy to prove since ] h Inc-
161
(In 1.8, Al™-, \t Inc; on the other hand Er \= NE, as we will see below.)
L /J L ,J
Er |= WN =* £r -.|=SN,
hence for all E^- ^ the equivalence WN <=> SN holds. Later on (in Section 5)
we will generalize this equivalence to the class of all ’non-erasing* regu
lar CRS's.
(ii) If E is a regular TRS, it is not hard to prove that
(Proof sketch: consider an innermost E-reduction <R to the normal form. Let
<R* be the corresponding E^- -^-reduction. Then the memory parts in <R' are in
normal form, and hence (R' terminates, in just as many steps as <R, in a
Ej- -j-normal form. (So E^ |= WN. By (i) , also E^- -j |= SN.)
Hence we have for regular TRS*s E:
For regular CRS's E in general, (*) and (**) require more effort; we
will return to this matter in Remark 6.2.5.(ii).
(iii) Note that E |= WN -j f= W N ; for otherwise by Theorem 4.11, we would
have E |= WN => E |= SN for all regular CRS's, an obvious contradiction.
The simplest example of a E such that E [= WN but Er WN is the
TRS with Red(E) = {Az ► 8, C ► AC}. Obviously every E-term has a
normal form. However, in E^- ^ where
the term C has no normal form; for, the E^- ^-reduction <R (written in the
subscript notation of 4.2(iii).):
162
^A*B * * C*
A a *E * * C*
A B* n*>C ’
A ®a *C,C*’C
® [ ] = [An,C*3
<c2r. ] = [[b, a*d], c*:
are used; moreover, 1210 denotes , etc. The bold line corre
sponds to the cofinal reduction <R.
G S (C):
B ■ AB A(ABl
163
Hence VE: -j [= WN
Therefore
VE: E_ f= SN (Theorem 4.11). □
4.17. NOTATION. As in 1.6, 1?((R ,^5 denotes the reduction diagram deter
mined by two coinitial, finite reductions <R ,(R^ • Likewise we employ the
notation anal°9ous to 1-6.10.
5. NON-ERASING REDUCTIONS
The main properties of CRS's with memory Ej- are: non-erasure and
Inc. We will now focus attention on these properties, especially the first
one.
PROOF, (i) We will prove the contraposition ~?NE => iWF. So assume that
E |= nNE. Then by Prop.5.2 for some non-trivial context <C[ ] and term M
we have for all N: C[N] — ► M. In particular:
i.e. E |= ~lW F .
_^
(ii) To prove "/NE => "7FB . Let E |= 7NE, then again by Prop.5.2. (iii) :
\ V -
Hence t FB 1. □
5.7. REMARK. Almost all well-known CRS's one finitely presented: A3, CL,
TRS1s as defined in e.g. HUET [78], RPS's as in 1.1.13. A notable excep
tion is AB © Church's 6-rules, see 1.15.(4) and 1.17.
166
5.8. THEOREM. For finitely presented regular CRS's E the following equiv
alences hold:
|(pZ) ' | > |pZ| > |pH[/ (s+1) > |n |/2(s +1) > |M| ,
contradicting (pZ)' c m .)
(ii) <= is trivial.
=>: by Proposition 5.5. (i), WF =?=» NE, so by (i) of this theorem, WF => FB
By Lemma 1.6.10. (4), WF & FB * =* Inc for all Abstract Reduction Systems,
in particular for all CRS's E. □
Hence, by Theorem 5.8.(ii) and the fact that for all regular CRS's the
property WCR holds, we have for regular finitely presented CRS's:
That this is really a strenghtening of (*) (apart from the fact that it
holds for all regular CRS's), follows from the fact that WF => NE (Proposi
tion 5.5) , but not conversely (consider Red(E) = {Iz -- >• z}) .
(iii) In advance, let us note the following curious consequence of the
proposition in (ii):
M M' M"
---^ >---
N" N' N
168
9(<R,<R')
5.9.2. LEMMA. Let E be a regular CRS and suppose E |= NE. Then infinite
Z-reductions are closed under projections. □
Va,b,c e A(b^c) Hd e A
a b
v
c --- > d
>1
(c -* d and b d exactly one step) and let WCR mean:
Va,b,c e A(b^c) Hd e A
a ---- > b
!*1
I
4' ^
--- » d
>1
(c d and b d consisting of at least one step) .
Then, as NEWMAN [42] Thm.2 (essentially) remarks, WCR* & WN => SN.
>1
QUESTION: does also WCR & WN => SN hold for ARS's? A positive answer would
result in an '-abstract' proof of NE & WN => SN for regular CRS's, since
NE <=> WCR“* .
However, the following ARS answers the question negatively:
c
170
5.9.5. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular TRS and r =?= H — * H' a rule in Red(E) .
Then r is called non-erasing iff both sides H, H' contain the same meta
variables .
If r is a non-erasing rule, an r-redex is called a non-erasing redex.
(E.g. in CL the I- and .9-reduction rule are non-erasing.)
5.9.6. THEOREM. Let Z be a regular TRS. Let <R: M — y M' ... be an infinite
Z-reduction, and let R £ m be a non-erasing redex. Then <R/{(R} is again in
finite .
("Infinite reductions are closed under non-erasing projections.")
PROOF.
«/{ R)
T(k) T(n)
The proof is very similar to the one of Lemma 1.7.2. Consider P(<R,{r }) as
(k)
in the figure. Suppose <R/{r } is finite; then after some N , <R/{r } con-
(k)
sists of empty steps. By the Parallel Moves Lemma (4.16) the reduction
(k) (k)
is a complete development of the set 1R of residuals in M of the
originally contracted redex R. Note that these residuals are again non
erasing.
Now let for some n > k, M ^ — ► M^n+^
be the first step in & in which
(k)
a redex is contracted that is not a residual of any member of 3R -By
Finite Developments (Thm.4.15) there must exist such an n. is a com
plete development of I R ^ , the set of residuals of R in M ^ . Obviously,
every redex contracted in , is non-erasing, being of the same kind as
R was.
We claim that the projection of this step, i.e. M ^ — »- M^n+^ / 6 ^ n ^,
cannot be 0, however. The proof of the claim is entirely similar to that in
Lemma 1.7.2. □
171
(Note that (i) M2 — >■ is one step and (ii) M^ -» M^ is an innermost re
duction.) n
5.9.8. COROLLARY (O'Donnell).
(i) Let E be a regular TRS and let there be an innermost reduction
(R: m — ► ... — N to the normal form N.
172
M R' , infinite
i.m
i.m %
R
i .m
.... R ' / R
N
BZ!Z2Z3Z4n
where a is a type and t(f,n,cr) is some term depending on f,n,a of which the
precise form is not important for us. To write these rules in our notation,
we can adopt a constant C (for 'choice sequence') and write
5.10.In the following figure we summarize some facts treated in this sec
tion, which hold for regular CRS's. Here "f.p" is "finitely presented"
(Def.5.6)
Inc 4 WF
f.p
i
-1
FB NE
f.p
I
Infinite reductions are
closed under projections
(5.9.2)
'V'
Church1s Theorem (5.9.3) :
WN <*■* SN
174
In this section we will prove some more theorems from which one can
infer Strong Normalization for regular CRS's. We remark that the proof of
SN, so obtained, does not require stronger means, metamathematically
speaking, than the proof of WN (Weak Normalization) for the system under
consideration. To be more specific: where a proof of WN uses transfinite
induction to the ordinal a, the proof of SN as obtained here requires trans
om -r
finite induction to w . (For 'Godel's T', see 6.1.7 below, we have
a = a/* = £g.) So if a WN-proof can be formalized in Peano's Arithmetic (i.e.
if a < £g), then the SN-proof can also be formalized in P.A.
6.1.1. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular TRS. Then E 'j- ^ is the regular TRS
defined analogously to (Def.4.5), with the only change that in a re
duction rule only the erased metavariables are repeated ('memorized').
1.15. (3).
Then
K Z 1Z2 lZ l ’K Z1Z2]
(Here 2 = zgj »Zg2 ,•- •# Z ^ for some m > 0, so the last two rules are in fact
schema's for rules; see Def.4.5.).
On the other hand,
(ABC)
(DE) ,F ,GH I
J,K L MN,0
PROOF. DL => DL' => DL" follows at once from Def.6.1.5. The proof of
SN => DL is easy: suppose £ |= SN and M e Ter(£) . Consider the reduction
graph Q (M) = {N e Ter(£) | M — » N}. No w define | |: Ter(£) -- ► IN by
IM | = total number of symbols in G (M) , i.e. ^Ne0 £(N) where £(N) is the
length of N.
(By SN, |M| is indeed defined.) Then it is not hard to verify that £ |= DL.
It remains to prove DL" => SN. Suppose £ |= DL"; let | | be an ordinal
labeling such that the property DL" holds. Now assign to M € Ter(£'^- -j) a
multi-set IIMil (see Def.I.6.4.1 and Prop.1 .6 .4.2) as follows:
CLAIM: there is a £'r -.-reduction step M -- ► M' such that Um II ^II m 'II (in
L. , J
the sense of Proposition 1 .6 .4.2.), unless M is already in £j- ^-normal
form (equivalently: unless all N c^. _j m are in £-normal form) .
If the claim is proved, we are through. For then £'r ^ |= WN, since
^-is a well-ordering by Proposition 1.6 .4.2; hence £ |= SN by Proposition
6 .1 .2 .
where N*, N'* are such that k (N ) =? N and k (N'*) = N' . So if IIMil =
= <|n |,|p |,...>, then either
IIM 'II = < |N ' |, | 1/ .../]Qm I/]P I/ ...> if N ' is not yet in £-n.f . and for some
m > 0, subterms O,____,Q not in n.f. were erased; o r -
1 m
179
I1m * | = < |Q |/ ..., Iq |,|p |, ...> if N' is in E-n.f. and the Q. are as above,
l m l
In both cases the ordinal |n | in the multiset IIMil is replaced by some lesser
ordinals in IIm 'II, since |N| > ]N * | by DL" (1) as noted above, and since
1Qi I < |R| < Itfl by DL" (3) resp. DL" (2).
(That the multiset IIMl! is otherwise not affected, i.e. that none of
the |P1,-.- is multiplied, follows because in the step N N' subterms
which are multiplied, must be in normal form by (b) and hence do not count
in IIm 'II, by the restriction in (*).)
So by Prop.1.6.4.2 we have indeed IIMil V5^" IIM*II. □
6.1.7. APPLICATION. Consider the CRS T = CLT (typed Combinatory Logic) plus
Iterator J and constants n for n £ I . For this regular TRS ("Godel's T")
SCHUTTE [77] (§16) proves WN via an argument due to W. Howard. This proof
shows that
(1 ) M' [ ML [m ']_
leftmost
6.2. In this subsection we consider again all regular CRS's. We will prove
another theorem (6.2.4) inferring SN from a 'decreasing labeling'; however,
now the labels will not be assigned to all subterms of the terms M in
question as in 6.1, but only to the redexes of M. Cf. the 'degrees' of
redexes in A ^ and XL,P in I.3.7.1 and 1.3.9. In fact, Theorem 6.2.4 will
generalize Theorem 1.8.14 to all regular CRS's E having a certain assignment
of degrees. Analogously to AL,P and A ^ we will define EL,P and E ^ , and
prove SN for those CRS's; an application is the Standardization and Normali-
zion Theorem for a subclass of regular CRS's.
PROOF. Let E be a regular CRS such that E |= DR and let M e Ter(E) . Define
IIMil = the multiset <#(R) | R e 3R (M)>. Now in an innermost reduction step
M j—^ N we have Um II/^ IINil , since R does not multiply already existing
redexes and the possibly in N created redexes have degree <#(R). Therefore
by Proposition 1.6.4.2 every innermost reduction must terminate. Hence
E |= WN. □
PROOF. We claim that E |= DR => Ej- -j |= DR, for regular E. For, suppose
E |= DR and let 3R (E) ► ORD be the given degree assignment of E; we
want to extend # to a degree assignment ^: -3R (Ej- -- y ORD with the
required properties as in Definition 6.2.2. To this end, define #j- -j(R) =
= #k (R) where k is the memory-parts erasing function from Definition
4.4. (i).
then it is routine to check that k (R)-.-.— > k (R') resp. k (R) k (R').
So we have d > d' resp. d > d', which proves the claim.
Hence E |= DR => E^- ^ |= DR =* E^- |= WN =*► E (= SN, where the middle
implication is justified by Proposition 6.2.3 and the last by Theorem 4.11.
□
6.2.5. REMARK, (i) The converse of this theorem does not hold, as the fol
lowing simple counterexample shows: consider the fragment E of CL consist
ing of those terms which contain only K ' s and the usual rule for K. Then
obviously E (= SN since every E-term (e.g. K(KKK)KK) will be shortened in
a reduction. But E DR, since R^ = K K K KKK = R^, i.e. the redex
KKK can create itself, as in the step R ^ KK = K K K K K — + K K K = R^•
(ii) However, it is possible to define a refined version DR' of the proper
ty DR, by specification of the context in which we have R^ * R^ resp.
R^ as in Def.6.2.2. The degree assignment is then to pairs (M,R)
where R e 1 (M) . Then one can prove: DR' «=> SN. As in the proof of Theorem
6.2.4 we have E |= DR' => Er 1 |= DR'. So E |= SN => E 1= DR' => Er 1 (= DR'
=> E f= SN, which yields a strengthening of Theorem 4.11 to:
[,]
For all regular CRS's, E |= SN <=> Er n (= WN <=> Er n f= SN. (See also Re-
L /J L /J
mark 4.14. (ii) .)
HW T t p
6.2.6. REMARK. Note that Theorem 1.8.14, stating that X , X , X 9 (for
bounded P) f= SN, is a corollary of Theorem 6.2.4, since as remarked in
1.3.7 and 1.3.9, these CRS's have the property DR.
E.g. in the example in (i) : (I) = abab. Furthermore (^E) is (I) under
lined; in our example, (I_) = abab.
(iii) If a e L, then a x h denotes a labeling of H in which every sub-meta-
term of H bears label a.
E.g. for H as in (i): a x H = (((SaZ^)aZ2)aZ^)a . And if H = Z (1,1) for
a binary metavariable Z, then a x h = (Z(Xa,Xa))a ; we will also write
za (Xa , I a) .
L
(ii) (CL © Pairing) has the rules:
('c“z i )6z2 ~ v zr -
I az — * z^
(iii) XL = { (X^.Z^^ (x)) ^Z2 -- y Zy-^- (&— -) | a,3 e L>. If we take a empty
184
((Pax)V — (x^x^V
III? Ill
(Vax) Br — * x^Y
(ii) For the same reason we have excluded 'singleton redexes'; because there
the outermost label has to be taken into account if one wants Lemma 6.2.7.12.
However, an extension of the results of this subsection to the case where
singleton redexes are present, is possible, at the cost of the associativity
in the manipulation of labels as in (i) .
We will now define another kind of term formation tree than used so
far (see Def. 1.7) and which has the advantage that there is a bijection
between the nodes of the tree t '(M) and the occurrences of subterms in the
term M.
Here the S-redex has degree ack, the K-redex dh, the I-redex e, and the
V^-redex &noq. In tree notation:
186
V -
valuation p .
(i) Then every subterm S c pZ^ (for some i = 1,. .,n) is called an inter-
nal subterm of R. Notation: S c . r . All other subterms S ' of R are exter-
nal. Notation: S' c^ R.We will separate internal and external subterms in
x'(R) by a bar? e.g. as in x'(M) above.
CASE 1. R^ ^ R 2 ‘ Consider T ' (R 2 ^ as ■‘•n t^ie (We will identify t ' (M)
and M in the remainder of this proof.)
Q
Here all internal subterms of R2 are below the bar. We claim that R^ cannot
be below the bar. For, if it was, then the upper part (above the bar) of R2
would clearly be unaffected by the reduction step -> IV^, so R2 would be
a descendant of a redex in , in contradiction with the assumption that
0
R2 was created in the step M 2 . Hence R^ as in the next figure:
0
Now consider the label a of the nop node of R ^ : this is an external label
of R^. Now a = (I_) where (I) is the degree of R^, by Def.6.2.7.5 of labeled
reduction. So the degree of R2 (the concatenation of all external labels
except that of the top node) contains (I), whence the result follows; except
0 0
possibly in the case that the tops of R2 and R^ coincide, i.e. R2 = R^.
Suppose this is the case. By restriction 6.2.7.2, R2 is not a constant
Q
- hence R^ = R^ is an applicative term AB. By Proposition 6.2.7.11.(ii),
188
L P
6.2.7.13. Let E be a regular CRS. Then £ 7 , where P is a predicate on L,
is defined similar to XL,P in 1.3.9.
HW
Also as in 1.3.7 and 1.3.9 we can define E , a 'homomorphic image'
L,P
of E
HW
E.g. CL has the rules:
((5n+1z1)m+1z2)k+1z3
III III
HW
6.2.7.14. EXAMPLE. In (CL © Pairing) , consider the step
V q ((K5P)3Ta b ) V7
q (V2ab ),
189
where all unmentioned labels are high (>7). Then the redex K VJ of degree
min (5,3) has created the PQ-redex of degree min (7,2) .
((Sn+1Zl)m+1z2) k+l Z
l
l
Z
3(Z
?3
l
) where L = min(n,m,k)
min (n,m)
(Kn+1z1)m+1z2 -
zi
In+1z _ zn.
HW *
It is not hard to check Lemma 6.2.7.12 for (CL ) .
(iv) The rules for the recursor R as in Example 1.12(ii) are n o t left-normal
However, the (proof-theoretically equivalent) rules for R as follows:
^regular
T R S ’s
W///A
Kfcl.n. c r s 's )-
V
reg . TRS's
regular C R S 1s
Rn Hi
6.2.8.3. DEFINITION, (i) Let <R = MQ ----- ► — ---- >■ ... be a E-reduction,
where E is a regular CRS.
• Ri
In the step M. ------ >• M. ,. (i > 0 as far as defined) , attach a
i l+l
marker * to all the redex-head-symbols 0 to the left of the head-symbol
of R_^. These markers are persistent, once they are attached (i.e. descen
dants keep the marker).
Then <R is s t a n d a r d , iff no marked redex is contracted.
(ii) An a n t i - s t a n d a r d p a i r of reduction steps is a reduction of two steps
which is not standard.
(iii) If <R = M q — ■+ is an anti-standard pair, we define the
"meta-reduction" (R «=> <R* analogous to Def.l0.2.1.
191
6.2.8.6. REMARK, (i) So every E-reduction <R, for Z as in the lemma, has a
«=> -normal form; however, <R may have more than one «=> -normal form. Example
and
PROOF. Claim. Let £ be a left-normal regular CR$. Then the following can
not happen.
r*
n
~2
Proof of the claim. Obviously the step M -- y N must have the form
l
N = — A) ... (^C) . ..)--
where
is an r-redex, such that the LHS of the rule r is (0^. ..z... (0^h ) •••) •
That Qq A must be in fact a subterm of pZ, follows from the non-ambiguity
of the rules, in casu r(see also Def.1.14). However, a left-normal CRS
cannot have a rule r as displayed, since 0 should precede the meta
variable Z. This proves the claim.
Now we can prove the assertion in the lemma, by induction on ](R] , the
number of steps in <R. Here (=>) is trivial. (<=) :
Basis. |<R| = 2: trivial.
193
Induction step. Suppose for 1<R] = n the assertion is proved. Now let
<& = M q -- >■ ... -- y be a reduction of n+1 steps, and suppose fl is a
«=> -normal form, but nevertheless not standard. By induction hypothesis we
know that M — -+ ... -- y M and M -- y ... -- »• M ,. are standard. So
0 n 1 n+1
must be of the following form:
= 0 0
Mo -1
1
i 1
M. =
1
l Q2
2
l
*
M
_
'Q
n
Cl
i1 s°
o
M ,«
ic
In M -- y M . for the first time a marked redex 0 is contracted (other-
n n+1 t)
wise M -- y ... -- y M was not standard) .
u n
The ancestor of this redex must have been marked already by the first step
in <R; otherwise M. -- ► ... -- >■ M . was not standard. So in -- y M. a
1 n+1 0 1
redex is contracted, marking 0^. Now in -- y M a redex < 0^
must have been contracted, for if 0^ > 0^ then marks 0^ again and
M. ► ... yM would be not standard. Now 0 must have been created by
1 n+1 "2
(L / otherwise it was marked by 0 , and M_ -- y ... -- y M was not standard.
l 1 0 n
But that is the situation which cannot occur, according to the claim.
Hence <R is standard.and the lemma is proved. H
CHAPTER III
r z
o: v vw 0
r z
Is V 1 (VW 1
r V ( V Qz ) ( V ^ z ) z.
Va b
Va b
Vo {V{VoA) {V1A))
rule
Vzz —* Z
h
and posed the question whether X © |= CR holds (cf. the problem list
BARENDREGT [75]) . A further simplification of the question was made by
STAPLES [75]/ who considered X © the constant V with the rule
s
V zz — ► E
s
where E is some 'inert' constant. In the sequel we will consider yet an
other variant, namely X © and the rule
P, ZZ --- Ez
k
with a similar E as before. The CR-problem for this CRS is so to speak in
termediate between the last two, and moreover the use of X © ^ will prove
to have certain technical advantages.
G. Huet and J.J. Levy remarked (personal communication) that one en
counters a similar CR-problem when considering Recursive Program Schemes
(see 1.1.13) with the branching operation 'ijf P then A else B' and apart
from the usual rules for this operation also the rule
if P then Z else Z -- ► Z.
The same CR-problem was posed in the list of "Further Research' topics in
O'DONNELL [77].
Finally, we mention that the CR-problem for non-left-linear extensions
of X-calculus is also encountered in foundational studies, see FEFERMAN [80].
A — ► CA — ► VA(CA) — v V ( C A ) (CA) — ► E
l
C (CA)
l
C(VA(CA))
l
C(t?(CA) (CA))
I
CE
So in order to have Z 1= CR, the terms CE and E must have a common reduct,
s 1
First some notation:
1.2.1.1. NOTATION. Let M,N e Ter(E) for some CRS Z. Then M j N will mean:
3L M — » L « — N.
V zz — ► Ez
k
Cz — >■ Vz(Cz)
A — y Ca
I
C(E(CA))
1.2.3. The counterexamples to CR for the above TRS's Z ,Z carry over al-
S K
most immediately to X © and A © as follows.
For A $ Pg resp. A © 0 , let E be either a new constant or some free
variable, or put E = (Ax.xx)(Ax.xx). Let
CM — » V m (CM)
A — » CA
i i
CE C(E(CA))
CM — » Vm (CM)
A — » CA
i
C (CA)
X x y . E ( V ( V Qx ) ( V l Y ))
Xxy.E(P^xy)
C = Ym Acm.E(V. m(cm) )
T h
A = YC,
T
and now
A — » CA
and reductions
202
l
c (E(c a )) .
1.2.5. REMARK., (i) Using the interdefinabilities scheme above, one can find
some alternative CR-counterexamples, e.g. for A © V^, using the definability
of V in X ® V : CM — » £ <M><CM> (KE) and A — » CA.
s h h
(ii) Our original construction in KLOP [77] was based on the TRS £ consist
ing of constants A ,B,CtV,E and rules
Vzz --- ► Ez
Cz --- ► Pz(Cz)
A — ► VAB
B — v C(VAB)
□ = PA(CA) Vnn En
CA
V(En) (CA)
V(En) (C(En))
1.2.7. PROPOSITION.
(i) X © (Vzz
S
— ► E) 1= pp.P , „V g
PROOF,
,,— — (i) Let r be the rule Ps ZZ — ► E. Define M --- r* N iff N ----
r ► M.
L.- 1.
According to Proposition 1.5.5: if 0 commutes with r"1, then PP0 holds.
Pi*
Now it is easily checked that
VA,B,C3D
V------- V
B 0 D
Note that here B — 5 — ► D is one step; hence it follows easily that 0 and
-1 ^
r are indeed commuting.
(ii) The converse of the rule r ® Pzz — ► Ez is r * = Ez — ►PZZ; and
A= X © r" 1 is evidently a regular CRS. In fact, A is a definable extension
204
~~ i
cE
We claim that CE-J--E, or equivalently (since E is a normal form), that
CE -/*> E. For, suppose that cE — » E, then, by Proposition 1.2.7 (i) and the
Standardization Theorem for A, there is a special reduction (ft from cE to E.
Suppose moreover that (ft is a minimal special reduction from CE to E, in the
sense of | |, as in Def.1.2.6.(iii).
Since (ft is special, it is easy to see that (ft must be of the form
(ft: CE = Y ( A c z .P z (c z ))E
T s
1*.m
V E(cE)
s
BI standard (ft*
psj.
V EE
S
Ps j
(Here — «-- ■* denotes a 'leftmost' reduction step; i.e. the contracted redex
t •ro.
is the leftmost redex of the term.)
However, the reduction (ft', indicated above, contains in an evident
sense a reduction (ft": cE — » E, which is moreover a special reduction.
Furthermore 1<ft"I < |(ft] , contradicting the minimality of (ft.
Hence cE E. □
205
.A » CA -- » E(CA)
i
c (E( c a ) )
as defined in 1.2.3. We claim that E(CA) ^ C (E(CA )). Suppose not. Then there
is a conversion r = as follows:
for some term L. Here we may suppose that (R^ ,<R are special reductions
(Def.1.2.6), as in the proof of Theorem 1.2.8; so T is a special conversion.
Now let T be moreover a minimal (w.r.t. | |, cf. Def.1.2.6.(iii)) special
conversion between E(CA) and C(E(CA)). Analogous to the proof of 1.2.8,
<&2 must be of the form
C(E(CA) )
3j£.m.
0(E(c a )).(c (E(c a ))) 'l
B^standard
60
V, L ’L'
k
l
El *
i
206
But then the above indicated reduction <R' contains clearly a reduction (Rj :
E(CA) — » L 1 and a reduction ': C(E(CA)) — » L' . That is, (R1 contains a
-1 ^
conversion T' = between the two terms in question. Also it is ob
vious that Ir '1 < |<&2 1 ^ |T | and that T' is special, contradicting the
minimality of T. □
1.2.10. THEOREM.
(ii) X © SP y CR.
PROOF. For the present CRS1s we do not have PP0 ^ (Postponement of P-steps)
----- p,V
as before. (E.g. consider P Ill — * II — 0— »- I.) However, locally the si-
h V p
tuation is the same; to be more precise: G (CA) 1= PP Here CA is the
p tV
term defined in 1.2.4 and the 'reduction graph' G (CA) is the restriction of
the CRS in question to the set of reducts of CA.
For (i) as well as (ii) , we will prove that G (CA) CR using the
previous theorem and an isomorphism argument.
(i) Let C ^ A ^ be the terms C,A as defined in 1.2.3 for X © P^, and C^, A^
the terms C,A as defined in 1.2.4 for X © P :
h
Note that in G(C^A^) every P^ appears in the form ... (P^PQ)..., and that
in G (C^A^) every P^ appears in the form ...(EfP^PQ)) ... . (The proof is a
routine exercise.)
Now define a map e: G (C^A^) -- >- G (C^A^) as follows: if M e G (C^A^) ,
then e(M) = the resiiltof replacing every subterm P^PQ £ M by EtP^PQ) .
(To be more precise: e is inductively defined by
e(Xx.A) = Xx.e(A)
r = EP --- ► E (P PP) ;
h
G!Ch V ^ PP6,0 •
h
The remainder of the proof is then entirely similar to that of the pre
vious theorem.
(ii) A similar argument as in (i): let C ,A be C,A as defined in 1.2.4
SP sp
for A © SP:
E(P(t>QP) (PjQ)) ,
in (i). (Note that in G(C A ) no P -,P -steps are possible, only 3-,V-
sp sp 0 1
steps.)
Hence the result follows as in (i).
G(C A ) |= PPQ „
sp sp 1 B,V
r* = Ep -- *- E ( V ( V q P) (Ip?)) .
The remainder of the proof is then again similar to the precedina cases.
1.2.11. We will now prove that there are similar CR-counterexamples for some
other non-left-linear CRS's, namely:
(i) For the TRS1s E, ,E as in 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. The proofs that the terms
k s
CA as defined there yield indeed CR-counterexamples, are merely sim
plified versions of the ones for A © P^P^.
(ii) Likewise for the TRS's E^ and E corresponding in the same manner to
A © P
and A © SP.
h
(iii) For CL ©
s k
P /P,
there are CR-counterexamples similar to the ones above,
bearing in mind that CL allows the analogous fixed point construc
tions (see 1.2) and that the same necessary theorems (Standardization,
ppCLy hoid-
(iv) For CL ©
h
P.
, SP there are also similar counterexamples; but in the
proof that they are indeed so, there is a technical obstacle. We will
deal with these “7CR-proofs below.
(v) For several other non-left-linear extensions of A and CL there are
analogous CR-counterexamples. We will give three examples:
(1) A © P^ where the constant P^ has the reduction rule P^ZZZ -- >■ Z. Now
P can be defined in A © P as Axy.P xyy, and a CR-counterexample for
h J i
A © P^ is easily found by rewriting the one for A © P^. (Instead of
take P^xxy.)
(2) Let E be the TRS with constants 0, + ,- and rules 0 + Z Z
(z1+z2)+z3 — ► z1+(z2+z3)
(-Z)+ Z -- ^ 0
209
if 1 then Z^ else Z^ ► Z^
Then £ ^ CR. For, writing B(x,y,z) instead of if_ x then y else z, we can
define P as follows: P_ := Aab.B(I,a,b).
h h
(It should be noted here that it does not matter whether one extends
A by B(x,y,z) or by B, the difference being that B(x,y,z) has always three
arguments, whileB can occur 'alone1, as e.g. in (Ax.x)B.
For CL however, there is a crucial difference: CL © B ^ CR, analogous
to CL © V CR (see below) , but CL © B ( x ,y ,z ) |= CR! This will be proved
at the end of this chapter.)
M x = y = S ( K ( S (KE))) (SV) ,
m
D
= E(SVxy ), m ' e
D
KEy (Vy (xy)),
M = E(P y (XY) ) .
6
Therefore claim 1 follows.
KEz^Z^ * K E z^ (V z^ Z ^ ) ('KE-reduction')
(so E is ambiguous).
Let ' (K) E-reduction' be 'E- or fCE-reduction'.
Then (K ) E-reduction commutes with CL-reduction (i.e. I-, K - , S-reduc
tion) .
n ik
Eb — ^— >■ E(Pb b )
The proof that they also commute is not immediately obvious (since (K ) E-
Now underlined reductions are also weakly commuting; again the most note-
worthy case is:
KEa b K E a (Vb b )
\ k
4 —
Eb E (V BB)
E *
To prove that E |== SN (i.e. 'Finite developments' for E) we can employ the
method of weights as in 1.4.
Every constant (say K) in a E-term will have a weight (|K|) attached
to it; during a ^-reduction the descendants of a constant keep the same
weight, with one exception.
Here the concept of descendant is for the CL- and E-reductions the
usual one (note that CL © E-reduction is a regular TRS, for which we have
defined a 'canonical' concept of descendant); for KE-reduction it is de
fined as follows:
KEa b
i i' *
i1 I
iii \\
iVi
KEa (Pb b )
in each SABC M, |S| > 2 ]CI (where 1C| is the sum of all the weights in
C) ; in each Eb , ]EJ > 2 ]BI ; in each KEAB or KEa B c m , |K1 = 1 and |E ] >
2 1B | -
R e d u c t io n of T-terms plus weights is as usual (descendants keep their
weight) with the following exception:
212
K 1Ea a b — > K ° E 0 h ( V m )
K^Ea a b — i K^AtfteB),
PROOF. Define the property P by: P (M) <=> every argument B of a B-redex
(Ax.A)B in M is either a variable x or a closed subterm. So we wish to
prove: G (CA) |= P.
p
, 2 . * (ty)
x y (t y ) t
r"y~ ----- W
>f
T 'Y (t ^ ly) -----------------------------------> 2
T y
ft
Y (^y ) (t y) ty
/ /r-y-
\r /
\x .E(Vx (t j x ))
4 ^_______ .
TY X .A
V/ J
T 'X
Y (t y ) x
The condensed reduction graph
<£(c a ). \/
P
(Ax.E(Vx( t y x ) ))x
E (Vx(ryx ))
PROOF. Suppose not, and let (R be a minimal special (see Def.1.2.6) (^-re
duction from CA leading to a subterm Vxx.
So <R = CA --- -— 3 7 — M ----- »----- » N 3 Vxx.
B, standard V —
Now we must have a V x x m , i.e. by the minimality of <R, M — » N is the
1.3.8. ----------
COROLLARY. Xn © £>h U CR. □
1.2.1, i.e. the TRS with the rules Cz >• V z ( C z ) , A ► CA. Then one can
develop an "expansion" (cf. the decimal expansion of numbers) of say the
term CA, in an attempt to find a normal form, as follows:
A A A A7 \ A7 \
I I
A A
In this way we find, as the 'infinite normal form' of CA, the tree
A E
V ' V
v / \ p/ x t>
/\ /\ /\ /\
T
/ \ T
218
= V H E
/ \
A V
, / \
IA V
; / \
| a A
l
V
/ \
E V
/ \
E V
/ \
V - -> V -> P - ■» P - E
/ \ / \ / \ / \
E V E V E P. E E
/ \ / \
E/ X V
E7 \
EAE E
E E
A H fl --- » E
/ \
A V
A7 \
1 a7 \
/ \
-A
EA f
l
EA E V
/ \
219
BT(CA) = A = v -------- E
H r -----
_
ZA / \
---- -> V V
ZA / \
------- - v
I^ / \
I
(Here the intermittent arrows
1
suggest where the V and E
BT(CE)
A V
settle down in the BT.l
/ \
EA
--*E ^
That is, the (finite) reduction CA — » C E has had the same effect, in the
corresponding BT's, as the infinite vertical sequence of infinitely many
V-steps.
l A
0 V
A / \
E 0 E V
l I / \
A A E V
220
and for £* :
BT(CA) = C = E E B T (E (C A ) )
I
I
1 V
C
l
BT(C(E(CA))) = <P = E E
A E'
i
l
.V.
E
I
E
i
E
l
V
1 V V E/ V
\ y \ a \ i
E] E| Ei Ei Ei E1 V
1 1 * i i 1 A \
V V V V V V V E
A \ A \ /\ _/\ i
E E E -- A/A A E V
I I i
V V D EX X E
/\ / /\ /\ I i
E E E E V
I I I I A \
V V V " E E
l\ l\ l\ I I
presence of CR, all these properties would have been corollaries, as re
marked in Theorem 1.5.11.
In order to answer (most of) these questions, we will need some pre
paration: a technical lemma and a theorem which is of independent interest.
The lemma, which follows now, is a partial CR result. It says that given
a term A and two divergent reductions A — » C, A — » B, a common reduct can
still be found, if one of the two reductions is free of P-steps. Note that
this is consonant with the above CR-counterexamples, where in both reduc
tions a P-step occurred.
3.1. LEMMA. Let T, be A © P ,P. ,P, ,SP. Then B-reductions commute with ar-
s h k
bitrary reductions, i.e.:
VA,B,C 3D
PROOF. A simple argument shows that the statement in the lemma is equiv
alent to the case where the reduction A -- » C consists of one V-st e p :
VA,B,C 3D
and similarly for Z'. Let us first deal with the simpler case of say
£' = CL. So suppose that A -p— »■ C and A » B; say A = <£[Pp p ] where Pp p
is the P-redex contracted in the step A > C. (The case of SP is similar.)
So C = <£[E], resp. (CCEp I, resp. (C[p ! depending on which CRS we are con
sidering; say this is CL 0 V , then C E d[P], (The other cases are similar.)
Now underline in A » B the redex Pp p in A and all its
CL
222
B = — V Ql Rr - ... — VQjPt —
and
D = ___ Si — ... — st
then we have
223
Furthermore, it is not hard to see that here B — » B' and C — » D are again
developments. Using this, it is routine to prove that a V - s t e p can be
"pushed through" an arbitrary B-reduction, being a sequence of B-develop-
ments, as suggested by the following figure:
dev
224
The closure of this diagram is ensured by the fact that the "dev-steps" do
not split, in their propagation to the right. □
Pa ....A -- *■ M. if P (A , ...,A )
1 n 1 1 1 n
where the M. are closed XV (or CL$)-terms and the P. (i = l,...,k) are n-
i i
ary predicates on T e r(X V ) (resp. Ter(CLP)) satisfying:
(i) the P^ are p a ir w is e d i s j o i n t ,
(ii) the P^ are c lo s e d under r e d u c t io n (including ^-reduction)
(iii) the P. are c lo s e d u n d er s u b s t it u t io n (in case of X V ) .
i
Then XV(CL,V) |= CR.
V 6
i 1 1
//
^1
\ f = ^ * L . p- ^ J
1
1
1
1
1
TT_>
(1) (2) (3) (4)
225
PROOF. The proof of 3.3 does not carry over to the present case, since the
assertions expressed in the diagrams (1), (3) there are no longer true
((2) and (4) stay true, as we will see), since now also ^-reductions may
have multiplicative effect. XV(CIjV) is not a CRS, but resembles one in the
following sense. Let At) (and likewise CI$; we will refer only to A in the
remainder of this proof) be A-calculus augmented by constants V,V ,. m.
and miles
-- ► M (A ,...,A )
1 1 n
— V A1
226
V is now an inert constant. Then, obviously, xt) is a regular CRS and even a
definable extension of A-calculus. Hence X& |= FD, CR+ as we proved in
Chapter I (Theorems 1.4.1.11 and 1.6.9) using the method of developments,
decreasing weights, and reduction diagrams.
Now, in order to make the resemblance between XV and )3 closer, let us
attach a subscript i to V in each subterm Va . .. .A where P(A ,...,A ). Note
I n i n
that these subscripts are 'persistent' during a reduction, due to the re
quirements (i) , (ii) , (iii) in the theorem. (The resemblance is not com
plete since in XV we may have e.g.
(Ax.— xA— xB— )V >• — l^A— P 2B— if P 1 (A) and P2 (B) hold.)
Now the point is that all the definitions (elementary diagram, under
lining, development, weights) and theorems there-about used in proving
Al5 \= FD, CR+ , carry over without effort to XV. For, a development in XV
is in fact nothing else than a development in Al5. To be more precise: let
M e Ter (At?) and underline some 3-redexes and "V."-redexes. Let be some
i
development of these underlined redexes. Then & is also a development of
M e Ter(A$) , but for one thing: in & a V may become a V (see the example
above) which is of course not possible in the regular CRS A^. In completing
a diagram V these subscripts, which appear out of the blue, do not bother
us however; ignoring them the whole diagram construction can be thought of
as taking place in A^, so it terminates indeed. So now we have CR+ for
A2A-developments; to obtain CR+ for arbitrary reductions is then a small
step. □
3.4.1. REMARK, (i) Note that the predicate P(A,B) <=> A = B is not closed
under reduction. Otherwise the previous theorem would yield that
A © (Da b -- ► A if A = B), i.e. A © #, , was CR.
h
(ii) An example: E = A © f V lA -- »■ A is CR, by the previous theorem
#KA -- ► AA
where P^(A^,A2) <=* A^ = I and P2 (A^,A2) <=* A^ = K clearly satisfy the three
requirements. However, E is also a regular CRS, so this application is only
227
consis conserva
CR UN NF
tency tivity
A © SP - + + ? -
A © R ZZ -- ► Z - + + + -
h
A © V ZZ -- >■ E - + + + -
s
A © V, ZZ — ► Ez + + + +
k
PROOF. Let V b e V ,V. ,V. , and now consider next to A © V. the CRS A © V * f
----- ^ s k h
where V is a new constant with the reduction rule
P
sV2— E
' re sP- PkZ l Z2 E
Z1
' re sp ‘ PhZ l Z2 — ^ V
228
V A V zo V Z. (i = 0,1)
V ( V o ^ l V 0"
Then the rules are left-linear indeed, but they remain ambiguous. Moreover
they are inconsistent:
3.6. The Normal Form property (NF). The failure of CR for A © SP,
entails also the failure of NF (see Def.I.5.6) for the first three CRS's,
as we shall show; surprisingly, for A © V we do have NF.
PROOF. For V, . Let □,□',□" be the terms CA, E(CA), C(E(CA)) as in the CR-
----- h
counterexample in 1.2.4. So □ — » and □' □". Let
229
<M> := Az.zM and KM := Az.M (zjFV(Ml). . (For CL, <M> := -SI (ACm I as is seen
using I.2.5.1.) Now consider the reductions:
Here the last term cannot reduce to the normal form I = Ax.x since o' ^ .
Hence NF fails.
V
I and now V / ■» E since □' Y □ ".
3.6.2. -------
THEOREM. A © V,
k 1\= NF.
N N = M.
V k+1 m
For, the step N^ — Nk+i in the conversion cannot be N^ * Nk+l since t*1en
also N — » n , contrary to the assumption; so N — > N . Moreover, this
K+1 K K “r 1
cannot be a 3-step by Lemma 3.1.
Applying Postponement of P-steps in — » N (Prop.1.2.7) and again
Lemma 3.1, we have:
k+1
N 0 N
231
For the CRS's A © ^he ProPertY UN turns out to hold also, but
the proof is more complicated. For A © SP the question is open; we conjec
ture that A © SP |= UN.
where 4>: Ter (A©#*) -- ► Ter(A©P) is the operation of erasing every *, and
=£ denotes convertibility in E. (E.g.
but not
p.103, (2)(b).)
4.1. DEFINITION. Let E be a CRS and let M e Ter(E) . Then CR(M), "M is CR",
iff Va ,B3C
M A
-s*
B C
4.3. ----
DEFINITION.
— ------ Let E be a CRS and consider E © A.i where i = h,k,s.
(i) A V - p r e r e d e x R^ is a E © A^-term of the form of V AB. A c h a i n o f V -
preredexes (of length n), or P-chain, in a term M is a sequence
M 2 rd * % ? Rd ? ••• ? Rin)
for some n.
(ii) |MID := the maximal length of chains of P-preredexes in M.
IIMil^ := maxflNl^ | M — » n }; possibly IIMIID = 00. Here — >■ is reduction in
E © A. . We call IIMil the 'V-norm' of M.
l D
M"
-*•*1
Suppose we have already found a common reduct N' of N and M' . If the next
step in , M' — >■ M" / is a ^-reduction step, we can find a common reduct
of N' and M" by Lemma 3.1.
The other case is as in the next figure: M' — »■ M" is a P^-step. BY
Proposition 1.2.7(ii), which evidently holds also with A replaced by £ (it
is easy to verify that an analogon of Cor.1.6.13 as used there, holds for
CRS's), we can postpone the P-steps in M ’ — » N*.
r
N
Now underline the P^-redex which is contracted in the step M* -- > M " ,
and also the descendants of that redex in the reduction M* — » L — » L ' .
(Since this is a £-reduction, this makes sense: the concept 'descendant'
is defined for regular CRS's. Underline moreover the contractum EP in M"
and all its descendants in M" -- »- L"; here L' and L" are found as in the
proof of Lemma 3.1. So the £-reduction steps in L — » L' take place inside
underlined subterms, and we have:
235
L = €lVP1Q 1,.
m m
L ’ S <E[PR R, ,....,PR R 1
1 1 m m
U
,5
L" = <C[ER , ...
1
—1
J?
for some m-ary context ®[,...,] and terms as displayed. (An m-ary context
is a context having m 'holes’, e.g. oS(Tnn) is a ternary context.)
Now consider in L all P-preredexes (underlined or not) which are going
to be contracted in the reduction L — » N * . To be precise: the P-preredexes
having a descendant which is contracted in L — » N ' . (In fact, we have not
defined 'descendants' for irregular CRS's ; but we can use for the purpose
of this proof the following definition.
Let A* be the regular CRS with constants P , E and the rule P Z Z — > Ez .
K ^ K Jv 1 Z 1
Then for Z © A^. descendants are defined; and now the concept of descendants
in Z © A^ is induced in the obvious way.)
We will mark those P-preredexes, which will be contracted in L — » N ' ,
by an underlining --- ---- . Next, consider the underlined P-preredexes (by
as well as ----._) which are maximal w.r.t. c. Then
L = C'[PU1V 1,...,PU£V£_I
for some (j =
Q
N* = CCD',.
L -- » L"
N'
lp
D! E Es C N*
3 ~
Since llp^ll^ < n by Remark 4.3.2, the induction hypothesis yields a common
reduct of S and R. as follows:
1
L p D. E Vp .O. Vr .R . r r Er . E F. c L"
j"j z 3 3 V 3 3 ~
ni
V
L'
N* =>D! E VSS1
~ 3
237
Again, since the P-norms of the involved terms are < n, we can construct
by the induction hypothesis a common reduct T. as follows:
CASE 3. D.3 = V u .V.; Pu.V. is not -underlined, but U .,V. may contain
------
sJL3 3 3 - 3 3 --
(Note that PlhV_. is not a proper subterm of a for some i, by the
maximality condition for the D..) So we have the following situation:
Vss
N' ^ D! E ES.
~ 3
Hence F. = P u ’
.V! — » Pr.T. — > ET. and D ! = Es — » Et .. So in all three
3 3 3 33 3 3 3
cases we have F_. + D_! (j = 1,...,£); hence L" 4* N'.
(ii) For E © the proof is entirely similar to (i). □
4.5. REMARK: Note that indeed the terms in the previous CR-counterexamples
have an infinite P-norm.
4.7. REMARK, (i) Let £ be CL extended with V , E and the reduction rule:
p^MM »- E m if M is strongly normalizing (SN) , w.r.t. CL - as well as
P-reduction. Then £ f= CR.
To see this, note that M e SN =» CR(M) by Newman’s Lemma; then the
proof of Theorem 4.4 applies without change. Likewise for V .
s
(ii) A similar proposition holds when the restriction in (i) on M is re
placed by:
"if M does not contain the constant V " (resp. V ) . For, then we have CR(M)
k ' s
at once, since CL |= CR.
d(Sz z z ) = dr ) = 1
12 3 / j'v
Z1 Z2 Z3
and
d ( Z Z (Z Z )) = d( Z )= 2.
1 3 2 3 / \
Z3 Z2
239
(ii) Call a reduction rule H »■ H* diminishing if d(H) > d(H’) and call
the CRS E diminishing if all its reduction rules are.
4.10. EXAMPLES. (i) Let E have constants oj, V , E and the rules mZ -- > ZZ
and VZZ --- >■ EZ. Then E f= CR.
(ii) Let CL have constants K, S and rules
*
KZlz2 — > zi and 5 ( < 1 W 3 - > Z 1Z3 (Z2Z3K
Then CL © A |= CR (i = k,s) .
( 2)
4.11. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular TRS. Then E © A_; (i = k,s,h) will
denote the substructure of E 6 A^ where every is the head of a P-prere-
dex (i.e. every P^ has two arguments).
E.g. if E is CL, then SK(VJJ) and V(V11SK)KK are E © A - t e r m s , but
SK(V1) or SKV are not.
(Alternative, inductive definition of T = Ter(E©AJ:
(1) Ter (E) c T, (2) A,B e T => AB, PAB e T.)
(2)
PROOF. If M -- »- N for M,N e Ter(E©A_/ ) (i = k,s) , then IIm II^ > IIn II^ as one
easily verifies. Hence |m |d = IIm II^ < 00. □
4.13. REMARK. Consider a regular TRS as in HUET [78], where a TRS is written
in 1function .notation'; e.g. instead of our Pz^Z2 -- the notation in
HUET [78] would read P(Z ,Z ) -- »- Z . Now, writing for the TRS having
1 2. L K
as only rule P, (Z,Z) -- * E(Z) and A for the TRS with the rule V (Z,Z)-> E,
k s s
Corollary 4.12 is equivalent to the proposition that for every regular TRS
E^ as in HUET [78], we have E^ © A^ (= CR (i = k/s) . (Below we will general
ize Corollary 4.12 to the case i = h.)
This might seem somewhat paradoxical in view of e.g. CL © A Y
t
the explanation is that the 'function-notation' version (CL © A ) cannot
f f k f
be written as a 'direct sum' CL © A^. See HUET [78], who gives as CL :
A(A(/C,zl) ,z2) — ► z 1
where A stands for application. Now (CL©Ak )f would be the TRS having the
two preceding rules plus A(A(P,Z),Z) — ^ E (Z).
We will now generalize some of the preceding results to A^ and SP. This
will be done via a lemma which may be of independent interest.
former.
mi \
1 = M
CL(a)(b)
Pi P£
(T'[o. 1 = p
h
l hl
242
mi “k
.....\ ism
CL(a) (b)
s/CL(a) (b)
Pi pp ^ q l
<C"[0 , . . . , 0 q Ss 1 = Q
hi hl
A B
n n
C D
n
Now consider CLn-terms a ,B,C such that A -- -r* B, A --- r* C. These 'steps'
n+1 ^ ^ n+1
consist in fact of CL-steps, — * -steps, and — —-- >■ -steps (m<n) .
We will now examine the elementary diagrams which arise when these steps
are 'confronted'. (We will not explicitly consider the trivial cases in
which the two confronted redexes are disjoint.)
( 2) □ . IDJ — > i
_____ — >
n
(a) n (b) n
g
=<—
r 'IL— —
□. m < n P
3
CL
(i) (v)
The other seven cases are even simpler: they involve no splitting of steps.
The conclusion is that the CL-steps (in fact only the .S-steps) are the
only ones who have the power to split the other arrow in an elementary
diagram. So by a routine argument and an appeal on the lemma of Hindley-
Rosen (1.5.7), reductions involving CL-, --► -, -- ► (m<n)-steps are CR.
n m
I .e . we have proved
n+1
n+1 n+1
n+1
5.3. REMARK. It is not hard to check that the 'black box' lemma 5.2 also
holds for X instead of CL, or for other regular CRS's in general.
5.4. EXAMPLE, (i) A simple application of the black box lemma for X is the
well-known result (obtained by MITSCHKE in an unpublished note and indepen
dently by us) that X © (fl +■ M) \= CR, where £3 = (Xx.xx) (Xx.xx) and M is an
arbitrary fixed term. (Cf. BAETEN-BOERENBOOM [78]) (Just put SI in a box,
which can only be opened after its reduction to M; the CR-requirements for
the boxes hold trivially.) This example is only meant as an illustration,
since it is easy to give a more straightforward CR-proof.
(2)
5.5. NOTATION and DEFINITION, (i) CL © is already defined in 4.11. A
notational variant CL © V (,) is obtained by defining the set T of terms
h
inductively as follows:
(1) T,K,S e T, (2) A,B e T => AB, V. (A,B) e T. Next to CL-reduction there
h
is the rule V. (A,A) -»• A.
Cl h
(ii) A ffi V is the substructure of A ® where in every one requires
A,B to be closed. So the set T of terms is defined by
cl
(1) x. e T (2) A,B e T => AB, Ax.A e T (3) A,B e T and closed => V AB e T.
1 cl cl ^
(Notational variant: V, (A,B) instead of V, AB.)
h h
(iii) A © (if .. then .. else ..), or its notational variant A © B( , , ),
and A © 8 are already defined in 1.2.11.(v) (3). Likewise for CL.
o1 cl
(iv) Analogous to A © P we define A © B
5.6. THEOREM,
(i) CL © ft( , ) f= CR
h
(ii) X e V? { , ) (= CR
h
(iii) CL © 8( , , ) f= CR
(iv) A ® BC l ( , , ) f= CR.
(2)
PROOF, (i) Consider CL © V ( , ) or its notational equivalent CL ©
(2) ** **
Let M e Ter (CL © V^ ) and put the maximal subterms of the form V&B (a
maximal P-preredex) in boxes and let n = |p a b !d (see Def.4.3) be the order
of such a box JPa b Jn . A box is opened when \V&B |n -- » [VCC [ -- >■ C. Ob
viously |clD < n, i.e. C is a CL-context possibly containing boxes of
order < n. We have to prove the CR-requirements for the boxes, as stated
in Def.5.1.(iii). This will be done by induction on the order n.
(2)
Induction step. Induction hypothesis: the restriction E of CL © V. to
n h
terms M such that |MI < n (cf. CLn in Def.5.1), is CR.
Now let M contain a IVa b Irl. Then CR(^AB) by the same argument as used
for the basis step, now using f= CR and noting that A,B e Ter(E^) .
Hence all the boxes are CR. The remainder of the proof follows by
analogy from the proof of the black box lemma,
cl
(ii) As (i). That in V, AB the terms A,B must be closed, is essential
h
(for this method of proof); otherwise by substitution the P-norm (i.e. the
247
order of the 'black boxes') could increase, as is indeed the case in the
previous CR-counterexamples. (See also Remark 5.7.)
(iii) Mutatis mutandis (e.g. the definition of | I_ instead of | | ) the
B D
proof is similar to that of (i) . The ambiguity involved in the reductions
B± AA -»• A (by two clauses of the definition of the rules for B) is harm
less .
(iv) As (iii) . f]
5.7. REMARK, (i) Theorem 5.6 holds for any regular CRS instead of X, CL.
(ii) We expect that analogous results can be given for SP instead of
(iii) Note the correspondence between in CL and in X. Indeed, if
t (or t ') is the translation from X to CL as in 1.2. then
t (. . ...) = — V ^ (t A) (tB) — . This is not the case for V AB where A,B
h n h
are open; cf. our previous CR-counterexample t (CA) for CL © V. .
cl h
(iv) Warning: X © f= CR does not mean that X © (P^^ A ^ A i-s c^-osec^
|= CR. For, the previous CR-counterexample is also a CR-counterexample for
the latter restricted system: the two P-contractions in that counterexample,
V(CA) (CA) ■+ CA, involved closed terms.
(v) We expect that Theorem 5.6 can be sharpened to yield a result analogous
to Theorem 4.4.
5.8. REMARK. The Fixed Point Theorem (cf.I.1.11) for X and CL can be stated
in the following equivalent ways:
(FP) VF 3X X — » FX
(FP') V<C[ ] 3X X — » <C[x]
Note that for the extensions of X and CL in Theorem 5.6, (FP) stays valid,
but (FP*) fails. (E.g. in CL© , ), consider <E[ ] = and note
that |M|p cannot increase in a reduction of M.)
In fact, the failure of(FP') is due to the failure of 'Combinatory
Completeness' (cf. 1.1.10 and 1.2.5.3? this property can be phrased as:
(CC) V(D[ , ..., ] 3C Cx^ ...x^ — » (C[x1, ...,xn J) since CC => (FP <=> FP ') , as
one easily verifies.
CHAPTER IV
XBri-CALCULUS
In this chapter we will derive the main syntactical theorems for ABn"
calculus. As it turns out, the addition of the so simple n-reduction rule
complicates syntactical matters considerably. After the Church-Rosser
theorem, which is easily obtained from that for AB and is presented via
Bn~reduction diagrams, we introduce A-residuals, which have a more pleasant
behaviour than the ordinary residuals in Bn~reductions. For instance, we
will show that the Parallel Moves Lemma fails for residuals, but holds for
A-residuals. We make an essential use of A-residuals and the PM Lemma in
this chapter.
By the same method as used for AB in Section 1.9, the Standardization
Theorem for ABn is proved. Then the Normalization Theorem and Quasi-normali
zation Theorem are proved for ABn. These last two theorems require an extra
ordinary long proof, compared to the AB-case; nevertheless we felt the ef
fort was worthwhile since firstly the Normalization Theorem is a very
'natural' theorem, and secondly since some of the lemma's used in the proof,
seem to be of independent interest.
This chapter was inspired by work of R. Hindley. It answers some open
problems mentioned in HINDLEY [78], namely whether the Standardization
Theorem (there called: Strong Standardization) and the (Quasi-) Normaliza
tion theorem hold for ABn.
1.1. DEFINITION. Let the set of A-terms, Ter(A), as in Def. 1.1.1. be given.
In addition to B-reduction we define t\-reduction, as follows:
® [A x .A x ] <C[a ]
n
250
Let coinitial Bn-reductions (R^ = A -- »-. .-- »- B and <R = A --- ►. .--->-C be
given. As in 1.6.1 we will try to find a common Bn~reduct D ofB, Cby
structing the reduction diagram V(6i^r6{^) . In most cases it is obvious how
the diagram construction for B~reductions in 1.6.1 is to be extended to in
clude n-reductions. We will mention therefore only the two noteworthy cases:
Ax
(I) C [ (Ax.Ax)B] C[AB]
Ax n
rI (trivial or 'empty' step)
I
£[AB] — C[AB]
CCAy.A(y) ] <E[Ax .A (x ) ]
Here in (I), (II) x 4 FV(A). In the sequel we will often omit this condition
and assume it tacitly. Note that in (II) we identify the a-equivalent terms
Ay-A(y) and Ax.A(x).
So in 3u-reduction diagrams we encounter the following types of ele
mentary diagrams: the ones which are already mentioned for AB (see 1.6.1.1),
plus
251
n___ B .'
___
--- g
--.---- T
" "’ ^
> 1
1
n n n ^n>i n |
times i
i
i
^ > 1
n B B
erasure
n B B
T
1 1 T --------- 1
i
i
1 i
1
i n (i d :
i (i) i
i n i
i
i i i
i
.. &i , i
V
V
coincidence absorption
Here (I), (II) in the e.d.'s of the absorption type refer to (I), (II) above.
It' is now easy to extend the strong version of the Church-Rosser theorem
CR+ (Theorem 1.6.9) to the present case:
PROOF. Consider a square which is determined by one step in <R resp. <R :
C $ D
1.e. VA,B,C3D[A -r-+ B & A — »> C => B — ■*> D & (CED V C -rr+ B) 1.
$ n r\ 3
This fact follows at once by inspection of the e.d.'s in 1.2. □
1.3.1. REMARK. Just as for the case of A3, one can prove that if &' consists
of 6-steps, it is a complete 6-development (Def.I.6.6). This is proved in
Propositions 5.1 and 5.3 (i) below.
2. RESIDUALS
In the sequel (Lemma 4.9) we will need the following proposition. The
proof follows immediately by an inspection of the definitions.
A B
C D
2.3.1. COUNTEREXAMPLE. The Parallel Moves Lemma fails in ABn for ordinary
residuals (as in Def. 2.1).
(Az.zN)(Ax . (Ay.M) x)
T1
Az
(Az.zN)(Ay.M)
(Ay.M) N =
R = Ax.(Ay.KIyy)x
(J i 3
Ax.KIxx —
i e
i
*
Ax.Ix = R^.
t ^ 2 - (*2Y-YY) z)
(^2y - y y ) (A z.(A2y.yy)z)
3. TRACING IN DIAGRAMS
(Note that the two terms on the right are syntactically equal modulo a-
equivalence, renaming of bound variables.)
Now it is not clear whether the label? in cCA^y.A] should be 0 or 1. There
fore we put ? = {0,1}. In general:
3.1. DEFINITION. Let us admit as labels for A's (not only redex-A's) in a
3 n-reduction diagram finite sets of natural numbers, denoted by a^,0^,...
■ - _
rv
reduction path
---- ---- X
X — propagation path
3.4. EXAMPLE.
(Aax '(X$y*yy)x)I
260
Note that in a propagation path X --- > X ~~~— > ... as well as in a X-path
X X the labels can increase.
V fl2
be a completed 3 n-diagram.
Let all the X's in M have a label and carry along these labels throughout V .
Let Ind((R^) be the union of labels of X 's contracted in <R^, and similarly
Before giving the actual proof, let us make the following remark.
That the lemma is not entirely trivial is due to the fact that in (R^,
(R^ labels of X's occur which are not £ lnd((R^) u IndttR^) . What we have to
prove is that those labels do not play a role, as label of a contracted X,
further in the diagram.
PROOF. Let a labeling of all the X's in M be given such that the i-th oc
currence of X in M has label a. . It is not required that a. for i 5^ j ?
1 I D
the are entirely arbitrary. Without loss of generality we may suppose
= { i} ; replacing afterwards {i} by arbitrary a^, (i), (ii), (iii) ob
viously remain valid.
Now we will prove (i), (ii), (iii) simultaneously by induction on a
construction of V.
Suppose that in our inductive proof a construction stage V ' of P is
reached:
261
X
.a 3 a --------- *1
i 3
1
1
*
<1 1
XauB
Xau3
auy auBuy XB ........ Xau3
It is only a matter of patience to verify that (a) and (b) again hold
for V ' + □. We will omit this verification here. If the diagram is completed,
then (a) of the ind.hyp. entails (i) of the Lemma. Part (b) of the ind.hyp.
serves to prove (a) in the case of adjunction of the first e.d. above. □
PROOF. Let the A of R have label 0, all other A's label 1. Then by the hy
pothesis of the corollary, 0 i Ind((R^) u IndCiR^) . Hence by (i) of the pre
vious lemma, 0 i Ind((R^/lR^) . □
PROOF. The following argument is typical for the notions of diagram con
struction and tracing of A's by means of growing labels.
Label the A of R with 0, all other A's in ML with 1. So the An- . in
0
{r }/(R have label 0 or 01 by Lemma 3.5. (i) . If a Aj^ has label 0 we are done
for such A^ can only be traced back to A^ by Lemma 3.5.(iii). But if it
has label 01, it might be the case that such a A traces back via M to a 1
n 1
in Mg, what we don't want.
Let us suppose this is the case (*). First we note that in no mul
tiple labels (01) can occur, since in a A-path the label can only increase
after an empty step (see the e.d.'s in the proof of 3.5) and (R does not con
tain 0 steps. Hence, if a A^. in {r }/(R traces back via M to a A. in M_,
U1 n 1 0
this trace must be via a A. in M . This implies that in {r }/<R a 0-step must
1 n
occur, in which this label 1 grows to 01:
Let us call such a situation a 'vertical 1-adjunction'.
Now consider an arbitrary construction of the diagram P({r },<R) and in this
construction the first addition of an e.d. in which a vertical 1-adjunction
occurs. This e.d. must have one of the two following forms:
A„ A, — ■ A,
1 I01 —
i
---------- x----------- *
0 !
1
1 ! 01— i|
i
i h j ! !
i X1
i1 i i 1
i 1
* 1 ^ nU 1
A„ 1t ----------------------- IX 01 J
01 01
4. STANDARDIZATION OF 3^-REDUCTIONS
4.3. DEFINITION.
(i) Every time when a B~ or n-redex with head-A (say) Aq is contracted,
we mark all the redex-A's (B- or n~) to the left of A^ with *, if not
yet marked.
(ii) These markers are carried along in the reduction as follows. All the
A's which descend from a A*, will also be marked - regardless whether
they are redex-A's or not.
(iii) Now a A-standard Bn-reduction is one in which no redex is contracted
whose A is marked.
4.4. REMARK.
(i) A-standard = standard w.r.t. A-residuals.
(ii) <R is a A-standard Bn-reduction =» is a standard Bn-reduction.
Cf. 2.4.1.(i). Here also, the converse does not hold.
First we will extend the realtion "<" (to the left of) for A's in a
term to redexes.
<R
(Xx.(Xy.yR)(lx))X
t i 'K t (Xx. (Xy.yR) x) X (Xy.yR)X XR XR'
Xx. (Xy.KIyy)x
Xx.KIxx Xx.Ix I
---------------i---------------.... --------------- ------------------------- -------------- i
W7Ky j 37k nr n 1
1
1 [ 1
1 l 1
^ 1 t
1 l i
1 1 l
Xy.Klyy 1 Xy.KIyy 1 Xy.Iy 1.
B,K l n f
( i
1 t
3 1 1
1 1
1
: i
Xy.Iy lXy.Iy |.
Xy.Iy
n '
l
1
n n
n !
I
I .*____________ !
EXAMPLE 5.
(co=Xy.yy)
4.6.1. REMARK. Without the trivial steps the diagrams would be much simpler;
in example 5 we would have
(Xx.o)(lx) )M
But in this way we loose all intuition for the standardization procedure.
270
or
or
PROOF. Suppose the lemma is false: let (see figure) be the first
term in <Rg in which a A(say A^) as 3-redex is going to be contracted with
a A (say A*) to its right. Let M^ be the term in which this A* got its
marker. By A is meant the A which is going to be contracted, by A* that
this A possibly bears a marker * (in the situation above this is in fact
not possible).
Now it is not hard to see that A -A. in M' , trace back to A .A, in
0 1 n+m+1 0 1
M' in the same position A < A . (*). This is so because every A in
n 0 1 ^
M',...,M' such that A < A^,A. is an n-redex-A by our hypothesis,
n n+m ^ 0 1 J
Moreover, by the same hypothesis, A^ is in M^ already a 6-redex-A.
Here we use also the following fact:
271
[Ax.(Ay.M)x]N---► (Ay.M)N,
this reduction.)
Hence, by Coroll. 3.6, 1 in M' , has no contracted X-residual in
n+m+1 _ 0 n+m+1
p <K. But then, contrary to what we supDosed, in M' ,:
n+m+1 ~ n+m+1
X^ ^ lmc(p (ft). Contradiction. □
p (R
M'
n
I
vl'
p n+m/
(o
R
n+m
4.9. LEMMA. Let (ft = MQ -> M^ -- > ... be an infinite $n-reduction sequence
and H c m q an n-redex. Then the projection of 61 by E is again infinite.
273
PROOF. Suppose not. Then every step after say has an empty projection in
the following figure, in particular every $“Step after Mn «
We will now see how such a B“Step, which has an empty projection for
some projecting n-reduction, looks like; and then conclude that it is im
possible for an infinite reduction sequence, in casu -- >■ ...,
to contain next to r]-steps only B-steps of that kind.
So let the projection of N_ — N' by the n-reduction N_ — » N be
0 B 0 J O n m
empty, as in the next figure. Note that the B~step does not split in its
propagation, until it vanishes (becomes 0) after some step say N^ — N^+ ^.
Write R_^ = (Ax.AjB^ (0<i<k). From Proposition 2.2 it follows immediate
ly that the r|-reduction
is 'separable' as follows:
(a,b)CQ[ ] ]
*k[
(*)
<c) *„ T \
(d) B0 —
Bk
(Remark ad (a) : in fact n-reduction is not defined for contexts <C[ ]; but
considering a context as a term in which some special free variable □ may
occur once, it is clear what n-reduction of contexts is. E.g. Ax.ydzx is
274
a context rrredex.)
No 5 W
NJ = t [RJ]
\ 5W
V ___
N >J/
m
So Rq R^, and the (3-redex R^ and the r|-redex are "too close together",
Now there are two cases: R^ and I-absorb or II-absorb each other.
(Xx .Aq) y
So Ao V * *k x ' hence Ao E ^ x -
So
R q E (Ax.A^x)Bq/ X i FV(A'k )
4.10. PROPOSITION.
ft
<R'
In V(R, {&nc (<R) }) the reduction step lmc (<ft) propagates to the right, without
splitting, until it vanishes (in the indicated square) by 'coincidence1 or
'I- or 1 1 -absorption1 (not erasure).
PROOF. Let Xq be the head-X of £mc (<R) . Using the same kind of argument as
in the proof that <R is X-standard, one shows easily that if somewhere in
& a X is contracted to the left of (a descendant of) X^, then this X must
be an n-redex-X (*) , in fact even a passive r|-redex.
From this it follows directly that Zmc (<R) does not split and that X^
276
xo xo xo x°
6 ! n l n i
6 I
3 1 6 1
xo - ; xo n i xo
1 i i
1
coincidence I-absorption
Otherwise the £mc ((ft) contraction had already vanished before it reach
ed the X^-contraction in (ft; and this can only have happened by II-absorp
tion (not erasure, by (*).) □
PROOF. (Note that the analogue for n does not hold; see p<ft and £mc (p(ft) in
Example 4.6.4.) Suppose the proposition is false. Then £mc ((ft) is a passive
ri-redex. But since to the left of X^ in (ft only n-reductions take place
(see proof of preceding proposition), this passive n-redex cannot be acti
vated, in contradiction with the fact that X^ in (ft was a 3-redex X. □
PROOF.
277
ft
4.12.1. REMARK. Using the fact that <R^ is a B-development, once can replace
the use of SN for HW-labeled terms by the use of FD for A3.
4.13. REMARK. There are two well-known technical lemmas concerning the re
lation between 3- and n-reductions:
PROOF of 4.13.1. Note that Prop. 4.10 remains valid when instead of £mc (<R)
we take £mc (<R) , that is: the leftmost 3-redex in M having a A-residual
3 0
contracted in <R.
Now define (instead of <R ) the reduction <R_ by reDlacing in the de-
s 3 /s
finition of <R , £mc by Imc .
s 3
Checking the proofs above, we see that also <R is finite, in exactly
P /S
the same way as for (R^.
After <R0 has stopped (that is, after we have 'exhausted' the tmc -
3, s 3
steps) the following situation has arisen:
Xx Cx
A — ^— > B is passive when Xx.Cx is a passive subterm of A, i.e. not occurr
ing in ((Xx.Cx)D) for some D.)
For if not, <R_ would have gone further due to its definition and the
3/S
definition of X-residual. □
DEFINITION.
(i) Let R c m be a 8~ or n~redex such that R's head-X is the leftmost
redex-X. Then R is called a normal redex of M.
280
So e.g. the term M = (Ax.ax)b has two normal redexes, Ax.ax and M.
Note that there is now no unique normal reduction, though the difference
between two coinitial normal reductions is inessential. The leftmost reduc
tion is unique; it is that normal reduction having the most 3-steps in it.
In A3 there is only one standard reduction from a given term M to its
normal form, namely the leftmost (or: normal) reduction. This is no longer
true in the A3n-calculus. There a A-standard reduction ending in a 3n~normal
form may by-pass the normal redex(es):
EXAMPLE 2 .*
1
(ft, = Ax.co(Ix) —>• Ax.cox ------ > 0).
1 CO ^
(ft = Ax . cj(I x ) — Ax. I x( I x) — Ax. x(Ix) — r-* Ax. XX.
^ p p p
In all three cases, both (ft^ and are A-standard while is moreover
a leftmost reduction.
We will now proceed to the Normalization theorem for A3n-calculus. As
observed in the preceding remark, the proof of 1.11.2 does not carry over
to A3n, since A-standard reductions may by-pass the normal redex(es) and
still reach a 3r|-normal form.
We have tried to construct a proof as follows: consider an arbitrary
A-standard reduction to the 3n~normal form, and try to amend this into a
normal reduction - but this seemed too messy. Therefore we will follow
another proof strategy, in which no use is made of the A-standardization
theorem.
Since the proof involves some technical lemmas and a lot of details,
we will begin by exhibiting the dependence of the elements of the proof
in the following figure.
281
Here the following terminology is used. If A and B are two classes of re
ductions, B containing only finite reductions, we will say: A is c l o s e d
under B-projections iff for all (ft, (ft1:
5.0. PRELIMINARIES
[Xz.z((Xx.yXa.a)z)]p.
tion:
(M, v) — ^ (M',v 1) .
\\m = II (M,v . )H .
283
5.0. 4. PROPOSITION.
(i) If (M,v) — z— y (M'fv')f then II(M ,v)II > II(M ',v ') II.
p
(ii) If (M,v) £ (M, v 1) , then II(M ,v)II > H (M ,v ') II- U
EXAMPLE.
\
(Ax.(Ay.Ay)x)B ■ - (Ay.Ay)B
3
A
ii ——— )- (Ax.Ax)B
n
A
(Ax. (Ay .Ay) x) B - (Ay.Ay)B
n
ii A
► (Ax.Ax)B
6
(Ax.(Ay.By)x)C (Ax.Bx)C
Ay -
Ay
(Ax.Bx)C
and now it is not clear whether ? should begin with A, A_, A. (Remark: it is
.possible to find a remedy such that _A is allowed while we retain the "weak
CR-property" (i.e. CR for the elementary diagrams) and even (FD) - but at
the cost of some complications.)
{r }/<R
M'
Mo <R' = <R/{r } n
5.3. PROPOSITION. Let <R be a complete $-development and <R' a one-step T\-pro-
jection of (R. Then:
(i) <R' is again a complete (3-development, and
(ii) II(RII > II<R' I .
PROOF.
M <R
T1 Ax .Ax
V
M' = ...((AQy.B)C)... .)
286
3 au3
of Lemma 3.5: in a diagram, A and A_ can only fuse to A _ if 'before' this
^ a
fusion we have a A - and a A -contraction in the diagram,
a 3
Furthermore, since is complete, only A^'s occur i-n N * Hence, since
by (**) the label 2 cannot grow, only A^'s occur i-n N '• Hence <R' is a com
plete 3-reduction of all the 3-redexes in M* starting with AQ .
It remains to be shown that ll<Rll > II(R'll. Let us again consider two
cases: there is a second A e u such that this A and the n-redex A^x.Ax
are "too close together", or not. (The first A e u is the head-A of A ^ x .Ax
itself.)
(a) M E •••(A01x.(AQy.B)x)C...
Let u, u' be the set of A^, A ^ in M resp. M'. Then for both cases
(a), (b) we have
Hence by Prop.5.0.4(i):
Maybe o' is not the minimal underlining u' . corresponding to <R', but that
J mm
does not matter, since we have
287
(M',u') 2 (M',U'. ) ,
mm
CASE 2 . The head-A of Ax.Ax is not in t. Now the proof above breaks down at
at point (*), see p.285.
We will use the method of terms • So let us underline in M the A's
in u as _A, and the A of Ax.Ax as A. Result: a j3n-term M * . Extend the under
lining to V . Result: a Br|-diagram V .
■k
It is clear that <R* is a complete 3-development, since every step in
in it is a ^-contraction (for this is so in <R*, and A_-steps propagate as
A-steps or 0-steps) , and since no A^ occurs in N'* (because no A_ occurs in
N*.)
Moreover, it is readily seen that we are in one of the two following
cases (this is a similar distintion of cases as above; but here it is more
essential):
(a) M* = ... Ax.(Ay.B)x __
*
M' Ay.B ...
*
(b) M Ax.Ax ...
(A ^ Ay.B; it is allowed that A = Ay.B)
*
M* A ...
The difference between (a) and (b) is that in (a) one symbol is
lost. Let (M,u) and (M',u') be M resp. M' , where ~ is erased.
Then in case (a):
Ay
(M,u) — r— ► (M1,u '), due to a-conversion.
288
Before stating Prop. 5.5 and combining Prop. 5.2, 5.3 into proposition
5.6 we need a definition.
M = Ax.ftf(Aa.I)x]x
ft fr—
t * f—t
A: -r— > M M
6
Aa 3 Aa 8 Aa B
A leftmost B
One easily checks that C --- D is an empty step, or again a leftmost 8-con-
traction. (Since a 8- or n~step cannot create 8-redexes to 'its' left.)
From this it follows immediately that if <R is 8-normal and <R' is a
projection, then every 8-step in <R' is a leftmost 8-contraction, i.e. <R*
is 8-normal. □
n
<R*
Supoose (ii) does not hold: then let <R' be 0 after say M'. By Prop.
n
5.1 and 5.3(i), the reductions <R^ , *••• are complete 8-developments.
By 5.2 and 5.3(ii), we have H<R II > II(R II > II(R II > ... where > is >
n n+1 n+2
every time that M -- >■ M . is a 8-step.
n n+1
But since <R is infinite, it contains infinitely many 8-steps. Contra
diction. n
290
PROOF. Let M have the Bn-normal form N, and let <R be a reduction from M to
N.
<R
M n
<R
N,Bn-n.f. <ftn/<R = 0
5.10. EXAMPLE. Let D = Azxy. zzyx (See also Example 6.2.) Let
M = R = A x.DDyx. <R is the reduction in which each time the leftmost 3-
0 0 1 qn
redex is contracted (so in A3, <R is the normal red u c t i o n ) ; it is a quasi-
gn
normal reduction in ABn-
291
DDy
M q =: R = AgX.DDyx
Aq X.DDxy AQ2x.DDxy
<R/{r }
{r }/ (R—0
n
Note that in the example above the normal redex R, although not A-
secured in (R , is absorbed by <R . S o we have in A Bn:
qn qn
R is absorbed in <R
qn
During the reduction <R , new n-redexes can be created whose A's are
qn
< Aq , by erasure of "obstructing variables", i.e. variable occurrences
x e FV(A) in H = Ax.Ax, obstructing H to be an ri-redex. Note that it is im
possible that new B-redexes are created whose X's are < A .
In <R there can only be finitely many steps in which such a newly
qn
created ri-redex is contracted, since there are only finitely many symbols
< Aq and contraction of an A-redex < R diminishes their number.
These n~steps may demolish the B-redex R, by erasure of the argument
of R, essentially as in the following example:
,--- *
<R = Az. (A_x. (Ay.I) z) z ("obstructing variable")
qn ^ ✓
*y B r
6. COFINAL 3n-REDUCTIONS
6.2. REMARK. <R is A-secured => <R is secured; but not conversely:
is secured but not A-secured because the ri-redex Ax.Cyx is not A-secured in
<R. Note the flip-flop effect: off-and-on the term appears and disappears as
Tl-redex.
EXAMPLE. (ii) A more subtle example of a secured but not A-secured reduction
is given in 6.4; there the A-redex stays an n-redex, but looses again and
again its quality as residual.
PROOF. Analogous to the proof of Theorem 1.12.3 for the 3-case, now using
the Parallel Moves Lemma 3.7 for A-residuals. □
Even though the PM Lemma fails for ordinary residuals, one could hope
to prove the stronger theorem "secured => cofinal" in a different way. But
also here residuals behave badly: we will now give an example of a secured
but not cofinal reduction. It is similar to the counterexample 2.3.1 to the
PM lemma, but iterated by means of a fixed point construction.
294
e4 = E (Aa. Ab.ab)
right Aa
E[Az.(Aa.Ab.ab)((Aa.Ab.ab)z)]
6
left Aa >
e [Az .(Aa.Ab.ab)(Ab.zb)]
6
/
\l Ab'
ECAz.Ab. (Ab1.zb1)b ]
i
E[Az.Ab.zb] -- etc.
The intuition behind this example is the same as for the counterex
ample to the PM lemma; only, here it is arranged so that we get an infinite
reduction (which is necessary if one wants a non-cofinal reduction; a
finite, maximal reduction is cofinal by CR.) The crucial step is 3/ de
stroying the n-residual Ab.(Ab'.zb')b of Ab.ab. The -.-. trace shows that
a is not A-secured.
It is easily checked that a is secured. However, a is not cofinal in
G(e 1 ). For, 1 E Aa.Ab.ab --- ► Aa.a E I, and now consider e 1 --- >• El. We
n n
claim that no 3n~reduct of El contains 4 as subterm. From this claim it
follows that a cannot be cofinal in G(El), because 1 keeps occurring in a.
(iu) = i
ic» « ] = i[- ] . i1" 1.
El
Cm] E (n)I[m] ■*> c [ l] ,
El
3n
where the latter reduction — -— » does not affect (operate in) E , be-
pH
cause the whole reduction is standard; and because E K contains no as 1
subterm (as can easily be checked), we can write
C[l] H E (n)®-[1].
6.4.1. REMARK. The use of the Standardization theorem is not essential here
it could be replaced by 'Postponement of n-reductions' (Lemma 4.13.1) and
Standardization for XB-
redex R in M^.
Then we say M ---- y N, in words:
Ax.(Ay.ay)x.
Turning to A-residuals does not help here, since FD fails for them,
as shown in 2.4.1.(iv).
Therefore we will not consider Knuth-Gross-reductions in A8n-calcuius
here. We will however consider an alternative concept, which might be just
as useful.
6.5.i. DEFINITION.
(i) M — -— y N iff N is the Knuth-Gross reduct (w.r.t. A8) of M.
Ge
(ii) M — -— y N iff N is the n-normal form of M.
G
n
(iii) M — — > N iff 3l M — — ► L — — y N.
G6n G6 Gn
REMARK. In (ii), N is uniquely determined, by CR for n-reductions.
Now we will prove the following theorem; before giving the proof an
immediate Corollary is mentioned.
(*)
Let R c M q be a or n~redex. We claim that R is absorbed in <R (see
def. 5.11, or the figure.)
REFERENCES
BARENDREGT, H.P. [71] (cit.4,8), Some Extensional Term Models for Combina
tory Logics and X-calculi, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht
(1971) .
BARENDREGT, H.P. [77] (cit.24,141), The type free lambda calculus. Hand
book of Math. Logic, Barwise (ed.) North Holland, Amsterdam
(1977) p.1092-1132.
BERGSTRA, J.A. and J.W. KLOP, [77]r Invertible terms in the lambda calculus,
Preprint 58, Univ. of Utrecht 1977. To be published in Theor.
Comp. Sci. 1980
BERGSTRA, J.A. and J.W. KLOP, [78] (cit.75), Strong Normalization and per
petual reductions in the lambda calculus, Preprint Nr.99, Univ.
of Utrecht 1978.
BERGSTRA, J.A. and J.W. KLOP, [79], Church-Rosser strategies in the lambda
calculus, Theoretical Computer Science 9 (1979) p.27-38.
BERRY, G. and J.J. LEVY, [79] (cit.11,93,104,216), Minimal and Optimal Com
putations of Recursive Programs, JACM 26,1 (1979).
BOHM, C., [66] (cit.8), The CUCH as a Formal and Description Language, in:
Formal Language Description Languages for Computer Programming
(ed. T.B. Steel), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1966).
DE BRUIJN, N.G. [72] (cit.4), Lambda calculus notation with nameless dum
mies, a tool for automatic formula manipulation, Indag. Math.
34 (1972) p.381-392.
CURRY, H.B.; J.R. HlNDLEY and J.P. SELDIN, [72] (cit.8,17), Combinatory
Logic, Vol. II, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1972.
VAN DAALEN, D.T., [80], The language theory of Automath, Ph.D. Thesis,
Eindhoven 1980.
HINDLEY, J.R., [78"] (cit. ix), The Church-Rosser theorem and Schroer's Fi
nite Developments theorem, unpublished typed notes, Swansea 1978.
HUET, G. & D.C. OPPEN, [80] (cit. x), Equations and rewrite rules: a survey,
Technical Report CSL-111 (Jan. 1980), SRI International.
KLOP, J.W., [75], On solvability by Xl-terms, Proc. Rome Conf. 1975 (see
LEVY [75]), p.342-345.
301
MITSCHKE, G., [79], The standardization theorem for the X-calculus, Z. Math.
Logik Grundlag. Math. 25 (1979) p.29-31.
POTTINGER, G., [79], The Church-Rosser Theorem for the Typed X-calculus with
Extensional Pairing, Preprint, March 1979, Carnegie-Mellon Uni
versity, Pittsburgh.
PRAWITZ, D., [71] (cit.127,128), Ideas and results in Proof Theory, in:
Second Scand. Logic Symp., Fenstad (ed.), North-Holland,
Amsterdam 1971, p.235-307.
SCHONFINKEL, M., [24], Uber die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik, Math.
Annalen 92 (1924) p.305-316. Translated as: On the building blocks
of mathematical logic, in: From Frege to Godel, ed.
J. van Heyenoort, Harvard Univ. Press, 1967, p.355-366.
SCOTT, D., [77] (cit.227) , Logic and programming languages, Comm. ACM.
vol.20 (1977), p.634-641.
SCOTT, D., [79] (cit. vi,vii), Lambda calculus: some models, some philosophy,
Preprint, Oxford University 1979.
STAPLES, J., [77] (cit.45), A class of replacement systems with simple op
timality theory, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. Vol.17 (1977) Nr.3,
p.335-350.
TAIT, W., [71] (cit.172,173), Normal form theorem for barrecursive functions
of finite type, in: Second. Scand. Logic Symp., Fenstad (ed.),
North-Holland, Amsterdam 1971 p.353-367.
WADSWORTH C.P., [76] (cit.24), The relation between computational and de-
notational properties for Scott's D^-models of the lambda-cal
culus, SIAM Jour. Comput. 5 (1976) p.488-521.
WELCH, P.] [., [75] (cit.88), Continuous semantics and inside-out reductions,
Proc. Rome Conf. 1975 (see LEVY [75]) p.122-146.
304
LIST OF NOTATIONS
(1) Abbsievtations
(2) Notations concerning terms
(2.1) [/arlables and metavariables
(2.2) Constants
FsLe.que.ntli/ occurring constants
(2.3) Symbols
(2.4) Terms
Frequently occurring terms
(2.5 Contexts
(2.6) Subterms
(2.7) Redexes
(2.8) Labels
(2.9) Trees
(2.10) 1Norms 1
related to s ' s
cr
(1) Abbreviations
ARS Abstract Reduction Systems 44
CL Combinatory Logic 11
CP, CP1 Cofinality property 51
CR Church-Rosser property (or TheoremI 45,150
+
CR strong version of CR 63,68,163,225
251
CRS Combinatory Reduction Systems 120
DL, DL', DL" Decreasing labels (and versions) 177
DP Disjointness property 38
DR Decreasing redexes- 180
305
FB Finitely branching 52
FD (Theorem of) Finite Developments 30,32,37,38,144
f .p. finitely presented 165
Inc Increasing 52
Ind Inductive 52
NE Non-erasing 164,170
NF Normal Form property 47
Set of normal forms 6
n. f . normal form 6,46
PM (Lemma of) Parallel Moves 69,163,254,262
pp a, 3
a Postponement of 3-steps after a-steps 45
RPS Recursive Program Schemes 11
SN Strong Normalization 6,46
TRS Term Rewriting System 121,131,133
UN Unicity of Normal forms 46
NCR Weak Church-RosSer property 45
WCR+ strong version of WCR 142
WCR1 restricted variant of WCR 169
>1
WCR restricted variant of WCR 169
<1
WCR Subcommutative 45
WCR restricted variant of WCR 47
n,m
WF Well-foundedness property 52
WIN Weak Innermost Normalization 172
WN Weak Normalization 6,46
WN |j Weak Normalization w.r.t. ]1 178
_1
—1
'll
substitution of N for x
X
2
1
1
(2.2) Constant*
A , B , C , V , P , constants 1
0,R,S
Vfi2.qu2.vi£JLy oclc.u/uujiq constants:
constants in definable extensions of A 9,10
sL
J,K,S basic combinators in CL 12
P pairing constant 79
pairing operation 77,79,151
0 constants in CRS1s 121
R recursor 126
J iterator 130
0,S zero, successor 126,130
6 Church1s 6-rules 131,132
V used for non-left-linear rules 197
versions of non-left-linear constants 197
(^'VV
W Ps
(Surjective) Pairing 127,130,195
E inert constant 198
if .. then .. else ..branching operation 131,197,210,248
8 Bar recursion operator 172
branching operation 209,248
*
A head-A of frozen redex 84
(2.3) Symbol*
S £ M symbol s occurs in term M 3
Symb (M) set of symbols occurring in M 18
s, t vary over symbol occurrences 19
s t descendant relation for symbols 19
s < t s is to the left of t 88,113,264
[ ] abstraction brackets 121
307
(2.4) TeAm&
Ter(A),Ter(Al) set of A-terms, Al-terms 1
Ter(E) set of E-terms 121
Mter(E) set of meta-terms of E 123
~n
MN MN...N (n times N) 106
MN MN,...N (for N = N , ...N ) 1
1^ m 1 m
[M,N] 151
M1 term M plus labeling I 18
oo(M) M has an infinite reduction 107
CR(M) M is CR 233
Ffie.que.ntZy occuvung tesute
Y Curry's fixed point combinator 7
Turing's fixed point combinator 7
yt
U) Ax. xx 6
n mm 6
i Ax.x 6
K Axy .x 6
KM Ay .M (yiFV(M)) 107
<M> Ax.xM (xiFV(M)) 200
<M,N> Ax.xMN (x^FV(MN)) 9
(2.5) Conte.)Ct6
(E[ ] context having one 'hole' □ 3
<C[M] result of substituting M in □ 3
□ trivial context 2
d-C fa•a/ -] n-ary context (i.e. having n holes) 213
/•a •t 1 the head-context of a term 213
(2.6) SubteAm6
M C N M is a subterm of N 3
H c H' H is a submetaterm of H* 182
M £ N M is a proper sub term of N 213
(i.e. M c N & M f N)
M E N syntactical equality 4
M c N M occurs at place cr in N 128
-a
M £ Subp -j(N) 176
53i
S
U|
i
—i
_i
(2.7) Redzxti
(2.8) Label*
M1 term M plus labeling I 18
multiset of ordinals 63
.... V
(R1 labeled reduction M1 -> ... 99
y
#
well-ordering of multisets
ordinal labeling
178
180
CD concatenation of all labels in I 183
(degree of redex p(H1))
a x H H in which every subterm has label a 183
A (aciN) labeled A in Bn-diagram 257
a ~
Ind (<R) union of labels of A's contracted in (R 260
(2.9) JK1XM
t(M) term formation tree of M 78
t (M) , T' (M) alternative term formation trees of M 123, 184
(not to be confused with the T-(or t ’-)
translation of M)
309
(2.10) 'Nottm'
1M | weight of M e Ter(E ) 34
— w
ordinal assigned to M 177
length of M 203
IIMil multiset assigned to M 178
£(m ) length of M 179
l«l total number of symbols in <R 203
1r | total number of symbols in T 203
|m Id max. length of ^-chains in M 233
P-norm of M 233
IIm "d
d(H) depth of H 238
11(Rll 282
fll'fl2
concatenation of (appropriate) reduc 69
fll * a2
tions
projection of <R^ by (R^ 69
V«2
{r } reduction consisting of the contraction 69
of redex R
(R ,(R standard reduction for (R 85, 265
s st
p(&) <R/{lmc (<R) } 85, 265
«1 ~L fl2
&1 f&2 are Ldvy-equivalent 89
®1 ~ R2
^l/(^2 ^ave t^ie same first and last term 93
r&2 are permutation equivalent 93
fll wfl2
other equivalences between reductions 93,94
~s'~S'~R' ^ B
RED (M) set of finite reductions starting 92
with. M
310
Rzdu.cJU.on ajinom
a-reduction 3
a
syntactical equality 3, 4
3-reduction 3
B
3-convertibility 4
3
— » transitive reflexive closre of --- >- 4, 44
reflexive closure of --- >• 44
R
contraction of redex R 4
reduction in CL 13
translation from X to CL 13
T(M) f t ' (M) t— , t *-normal form of M (i.e. 13
t— , t 1-translation of M)
descendant relation 19,r139,180
labeled 3-reduction 19
underlined 3-reduction 23
Hyland-Wadsworth labeled 3-reduction 24
HW
Ldvy-labeled 3-reduction 28
n-ary ^-reduction ('fast* 3~reduction)_ 37
311
Bn-reduction 249
Bn
propagation of reduction steps in a 257
diagram
Knuth-Gross reductions in ABn 296
B n Bn
(3.2) R e d u c t io n AyAtemb
A, B Abstract Reduction Systems 44
A c B A is a substructure of B 50
fioZouto^d t o A a n d CL
A, AB A- (or AB-) calculus 5
Al Al-calculus 5
AP definable extension of A 10
CL Combinatory Logic 11
r<
XB fast XB-calculus 37
m
XB underlined version of XB 38
— m m
XIP definable extension of XI 72
X-calculus plus pairing 79
h.i
Xl-calculus plus pairing 81
XIC,]
CL t typed CL 172
CLD CL plus black boxes 241
Xri, X3n Xri- (or XBn-) calculus 250
XBn double underlined version of XBn 283
fi£late.d to c r s 's
I |= p E has the property P 25
(P is true in E)
l underlined version of E 32,139
e E plus underlining and weights 33
—w
E Combinatory Reduction System 120
E^ is a substructure of E^ 121
E1 £ E2
direct sum of CRS's E^,E^ 134
E1 * E2
labeled version of E 138
M
>
T Gfidel's T 179
A^ (i = k,s,h) non-left-linear CRS's 233
INDEX
convertibility 4 extension 50
conversion 102, 203 external label 186
(a-) 3 external subterm 186
creation of redexes 25, 140
Fast development 38
creator redex 188, 191
^Finite Developments 30, 37, 39, 163, 256
Curry's fixed point combinator (Y)
finitely branching (FB) 52
P-chain 233 finitely presented (f.p.) 165
decreasing labeling (DL) 177 fixed points 7
decreasing redex labeling (DR) 180 fixed point combinator
definable extensions 9 Curry's 7
definable extension of Al 72 Turing's 7
definition by cases 130 with parameters 8
degree 180, 185 Fixed Point Theorem 7, 224
of 8 -redex 24 multiple 9
HW
of 8 -redex 28 flat combinator 12
L
6-rules of Church 131, 132 forgetful reduction rule 153
depth 238 formation tree 78
derived terms 213 t (M) 78
descendant 19, 139 T(M) 123
developments T '(M) 184
complete 66 free variables 2
fast 37 frozen 91, 152
Finite 30, 37, 39, 163, 256 function notation 122, 240
in CRS 140 function part 5
in A, AP FV (M) 2
diminishing 239 FV (M) 164
direct sum © 134
Godel's T 75, 179
P-norm 233
good 34
P-preredex 233
graph, reduction - 50
Elementary diagram (e.d.) 59
Head normal form (h.n.f.) 213
empty step 59
head reduction 16, 213
equivalence of reductions 89, 93
height of Ldvy-label 29
erasing step 107
Hindley-Rosen Lemma 47
erasure 72, 251
homomorphisms from AL 29
expansion 274
Increasing (Inc) 52 L-labeled CRS 183
index(ing) 18 lmc (<R) 85, 265
induced concept of descendant 22 A-abstractioyi 1
inductive (Ind) 52 A(a)-reductions 131, 132, 133, 136
inert 10 A-(or A3-) calculus 5
infinite term 107 A-(or AB-) calculus 23
initial labeling 19, 138 All-calculus 215
innermost redex 76 Al-terms 1
inside-out reduction 88 AL-calculus 27
interdefinabilities 200 A-path 257, 258
interference 129, 130 AP-calculus 10
internal label 186 AP-calculus 23
internal labeling 140, 141 A-residuals 254
internal subterm 186 A-secured 290
Iterator (J) 130, 179 A-standard 264
x
A -calculus 27
k-expansion 153
k-normal form 79 Marker * 84
Knuth-Gross reduction 117, 295 memory part 151
k-reduction 79 meta-metavariables 123
meta-reduction 96, 190
labeling 18
meta-terms 123
adequate 99
metavariables 12, 120
initial 138
multiple fixed point theorem 9
strongly adequate 108
multiplicity 33
labeled 3-reduction 18
multiset 63
labeled CRS 137
labels 18 Nederpelt's Lemma 47
Hyland-Wadsworth (HW) 24 Newman's Lemma 47
Ldvy- 27, 182 noetherian 46
multiple 24 non-ambiguous 119, 130
left-linear 119, 126 non-erasing 164, 170
leftmost redex 16, 113 normal form (n.f.) 6
le ft-normal 189 normal form property (NF) 220, 228
Ldvy-equivalent 89 normal redex 113, 279
leftmost contracted redex normal reduction 113, 280
(lmc) 85, 265 Normalization Theorem 114, 194, 290
LdvyfS' A-calculus (AL J 27 normalizing
316
weakly 6, 46 reduction
strongly 6, 46 a- 3
3- 3
Pairing 130
3- 23
Surjective 127, 133, 195
BA- 19
Parallel Moves Lemma (PM) 69, 163
for A3n 254, 262
6h w - 24
eT - 28
permutation equivalence 96
equivalence of 89
P.-redexes 10
i eventually leftmost 113
Postponement of 3 after a(PP ) 45
a, 3 head 16
P-normal form 78
inside-out 88
Postponement of n-reductions 278
k- 79
projection 69
Knuth-Gross 117
Proof Theory 127, 133
labeled 3- 18
propagation 61, 257
leftmost 16
proper indexing 182
maximal 113
proper rule 21
normal 113
quasi-normal 113
Quasi-Knuth-Gross reduction 118
secured 115
quasi-normal reduction 113
special 108
Quasi-normalization Theorem (A3n)
standard 84
293
reduction by cases 224, 225
Recursive Program Schemes (RPS) reduction diagram 58
11, 133 reduction graph 50
recursor (P) 75, 122, 126, 133 reduction relation 126
redex reduction rule 120, 126
3- 3 regular 129, 131, 133,
contracted in (ft 84 replacement system 44
creation of 25 residuals 19, 139
frozen 91 for A3n 252
head 213 A- 254
I-, K - , S - 12
Safe 3-redex 4
leftmost 113
safe
normal 113
redex 14
P.- 10
l
reduction 14
safe 14
secured
secured 114
317
SAMENVATTING
elke functie F een vast punt p heeft, dus Fp = p. Namelijk, neem bij gegeven
F eenvoudig p = D (F°D) . Dan immers p = D (F°D) = (F°D) (F°D) = F (D (F°D) ) = Fp!
Deze zo eenvoudig af te leiden Fixed Point stelling in de A-calculus hangt
samen met Godel's Onvolledigheidsstelling en met een fundamentele stelling
in de Recursietheorie.
Bij de genoemde voorbeelden is het duidelijk dat er een zekere asym-
metrie zit in de gelijkheid (=); er is sprake van uitrekenen, reduceren ge-
naamd. Bijvoorbeeld, Da wordt gereduceerd tot aa; notatie: Da -+ aa. Meestal
bevat een A-term M verschillende onderdelen die gereduceerd kunnen worden
(zoals bijvoorbeeld ook de berekening van (3+2).(5+7) op verschillende ma-
nieren begonnen kan worden) en we kunnen de term M dus op verschillende ma-
nieren uitrekenen. A priori is het mogelijk dat er dan ook verschillende
'uitkomsten* gevonden worden, waarbij een 'uitkomst' (officieel: normaal-
vorm) een term is die niet verder gereduceerd kan worden. Dat zou, intui-
tief gesproken, niet in de haak zijn. Gelukkig zegt een fundamentele stel
ling (van Church en Rosser) dat wanneer een term M op twee manieren een
aantal stappen gereduceerd wordt, zeg tot A en B, er verdere reducties zijn
die tot een gemeenschappelijk reduct C van A, B leiden:
M
En deze stelling garandeert (na nog een kort argument) de uniciteit van de
uitkomst, als die er tenminste is. (Bijv. de berekening van DD leidt niet
tot een uitkomst: DD -+ DD -+ ...)
Het probleem bij het bewijzen van deze Church-Rosser eigenschap is als
volgt. Als elk tweetal reductiestappeny^\^aangevuld zou kunnen worden tot
een 'tegel' O , zou het niet moeilijk zijn het gemeenschappelijk
lx ■> x
Kxy -+ x
Sxyz (xz) (yz) .
CL heeft ook weer zijn nadelen: de beschrijving door een A-term van een
'rekenproces* is veel directer; de corresponderende combinator is veel in-
gewikkelder. Een voorbeeld van een typisch verschil in syntactisch gedrag:
het is niet moeilijk A-termen M te vinden zodat M met al zijn "reducten"
precies een reductie-*loop" vormt: M
een in pure vorm, ontdaan van alle ‘syntactic sugar1 waaronder de essentie
van echte programma's soms schuil gaat. De A-calculus (of CL) is te zien
als een 1oer-programmeertaal1, waarin veel van de essentiele aspecten van
echte programmeertalen in pure vorm bestudeerd kunnen worden. (Zo bezien is
zelf-applicatie (FF) niet vreemd: een programma kan zichzelf als input heb-
ben.) Reductie-stappen zijn atomaire berekeningen, zoals in Turing machines
het opschuiven van de band, het veranderen van inwendige toestand, het druk-
ken van een symbool, etc., de atomaire handelingen zijn. (Alles wat een
Turing machine kan, kan CL of A-calculus ook.)
Hiermee zijn we terecht gekomen van het Grondslagenaspect op dat van
de Computer Science. Het reductiesysteem CL is een voorbeeld van een Term
Reductie Systeem (TRS). TRS'en komen al in elementaire wiskunde voor, bij-
voorbeeld
x+0 x
x+ (y+1) -+ (x+y) +1
x. 0 -+ 0
^x. (y+1) -+ x.y+x,
x + (-x) --- ► 0
1
x'+(-x)
322
x+(-x) 0
Het hoofdresultaat van dit proefschrift is nu, dat door die non-lineariteit
van reductie-regels de Church-Rosser eigenschap (CR) beslissend verstoord
wordt, als het reductie-systeem in kwestie tenminste 1sterk genoeg* is. Voor
de eenvoudige niet-lineaire TRS E van boven geldt CR nog wel. Maar als we
een ‘mixture* zouden bekijken van A-calculus plus £ (met termen zoals
Az.((Axy.x+(-y)+z)), dan geldt CR niet langer!
Overigens: het falen van CR impliceert nog niet dat een term dan tot
verschillende uitkomsten gereduceerd kan worden. Inderdaad blijkt in de on-
derzochte systemen dat daar de uniciteit van normaalvormen blijft gelden,
ook al geldt CR niet.
Zulke non-lineaire systemen komen in verschillende gebieden tevoor-
schijn; behalve in *pure* A-calculus en als TRS-en die samenhangen met al-
gebraische structuren (zoals het voorbeeld boven), ook in de Bewijstheorie
en in de Theoretische Informatica, bij een stel regels als:
Curriculum vitae
Op 19 december 1945 ben ik in Gorinchem geboren. Van 1957 tot 1963 be-
zocht ik het Stedelijk Gymnasium te 1s-Hertogenboschf waarna ik begon met
de Wis- en Natuurkundestudie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Na een
studie-onderbreking, o.a. voor een part-time leraarschap aan een MAVO-school
gedurende twee jaar en het vervullen van de militaire dienstplicht (van
januari 1970 tot juli 1971; het kandidaatsexamen Wis- en ,Natuurkunde met
bijvak Sterrekunde behaalde ik in juli 1970), heb ik de Wiskundestudie in
1972 hervat.
In mijn afstudeerjaar (1974-1975) was ik assistent bij Van Dalen en
Barendregt. Onder leiding van laatstgenoemde bestudeerde ik de A-calculus
(ook wel Combinatorische Logica geheten). Dit gebeurde in een seminarium
met als verdere deelnemers Jan Bergstra en Henri Volken; de doelstelling
was niet alleen receptief A-calculus te beoefenen, maar met ons vieren ook
actief onderzoek te doen. Dat heeft geleid tot enkele publicaties, waarop
ik samen met Jan Bergstra na mijn doctoraalexamen (juni 1975) ben doorge-
gaan, toen ik inmiddels een vierjarige promotie-aanstelling gekregen had
(half bij de Subfaculteit Wiskunde en half bij de Centrale Interfaculteit
van de R.U. Utrecht).
Na dit gezamenlijke werk ben ik vanaf 1976 doorgegaan op hetzelfde
onderzoeksgebied: de syntactische kant van A-calculus en Combinatorische
Logica, wat geleid heeft tot het onderhavige proefschrift en een publicatie
in het aanstaande Festschrift voor de nestor van de Combinatorische Logica,
H.B. Curry.
Vanaf augustus 1979 ben ik in tijdelijke betrekking bij de Stichting
Opleiding Leraren te Utrecht.