Results 1 
3 of
3
Lectures on the curryhoward isomorphism
, 1998
"... The CurryHoward isomorphism states an amazing correspondence between systems of formal logic as encountered in proof theory and computational calculi as found in type theory. For instance, minimal propositional logic corresponds to simply typed λcalculus, firstorder logic corresponds to dependent ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The CurryHoward isomorphism states an amazing correspondence between systems of formal logic as encountered in proof theory and computational calculi as found in type theory. For instance, minimal propositional logic corresponds to simply typed λcalculus, firstorder logic corresponds to dependent types, secondorder logic corresponds to polymorphic types, etc. The isomorphism has many aspects, even at the syntactic level: formulas correspond to types, proofs correspond to terms, provability corresponds to inhabitation, proof normalization corresponds to term reduction, etc. But there is much more to the isomorphism than this. For instance, it is an old idea—due to Brouwer, Kolmogorov, and Heyting, and later formalized by Kleene’s realizability interpretation—that a constructive proof of an implication is a procedure that transforms proofs of the antecedent into proofs of the succedent; the CurryHoward isomorphism gives syntactic representations of such procedures. These notes give an introduction to parts of proof theory and related
(Université de Savoie)
, 903
"... We show various (syntactic and behavioral) properties of random λterms. Our main results are that at least 3/4 of the terms are strongly normalizing and that any fixed closed term almost never appears in a random term. Surprisingly, in combinatory logic (the translation of the λcalculus into combi ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We show various (syntactic and behavioral) properties of random λterms. Our main results are that at least 3/4 of the terms are strongly normalizing and that any fixed closed term almost never appears in a random term. Surprisingly, in combinatory logic (the translation of the λcalculus into combinators) the result is different. We show that almost all terms are not strongly normalizing, because any fixed term almost always appears in a random term.