Results 1  10
of
21
Logics and Type Systems
, 1993
"... from the last declaration in \Delta (which is p:'). (oeE) In fact the ([\Theta]) is not exactly the ([\Theta]) that is found by induction. Possibly some of the free variables in ([\Theta]) are renamed. What happens is the following: 1. Consider the proofcontext \Delta 1 ] \Delta 2 and especially ..."
Abstract

Cited by 85 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
from the last declaration in \Delta (which is p:'). (oeE) In fact the ([\Theta]) is not exactly the ([\Theta]) that is found by induction. Possibly some of the free variables in ([\Theta]) are renamed. What happens is the following: 1. Consider the proofcontext \Delta 1 ] \Delta 2 and especially the renaming of the declared variables in \Delta 2 that has been caused by the operation ]. 2. Rename the free proofvariables in ([\Theta]) accordingly, obtaining say, ([\Theta 0 ]). 3. Apply ([\Sigma]) to ([\Theta 0 ]). (There will in practice be no confusion if we just write ([\Theta]) instead.) Of course the intended meaning is that the judgement below the double lines is derivable if the judgement above the lines is. This will be proved later in Theorem 3.2.8. It should be clear at this point however that there is a onetoone correspondence between the occurrences of ' as a (nondischarged) premise in the deduction and declarations p:' in \Delta. Notation. If for \Sigma a deducti...
Pure type systems formalized
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications
, 1993
"... ..."
Implicit Syntax
 Informal Proceedings of First Workshop on Logical Frameworks
, 1992
"... A proof checking system may support syntax that is more convenient for users than its `official' language. For example LEGO (a typechecker for several systems related to the Calculus of Constructions) has algorithms to infer some polymorphic instantiations (e.g. pair 2 true instead of pair nat bo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 20 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A proof checking system may support syntax that is more convenient for users than its `official' language. For example LEGO (a typechecker for several systems related to the Calculus of Constructions) has algorithms to infer some polymorphic instantiations (e.g. pair 2 true instead of pair nat bool 2 true) and universe levels (e.g. Type instead of Type(4)). Users need to understand such features, but do not want to know the algorithms for computing them. In this note I explain these two features by nondeterministic operational semantics for "translating" implicit syntax to the fully explicit underlying formal system. The translations are sound and complete for the underlying type theory, and the algorithms (which I will not talk about) are sound (not necessarily complete) for the translations. This note is phrased in terms of a general class of type theories. The technique described has more general application. 1 Introduction Consider the usual formal system, !, for simp...
Pure Type Systems with Definitions
, 1993
"... In this paper, an extension of Pure Type Systems (PTS's) with definitions is presented. We prove this extension preserves many of the properties of PTS's. The main result is a proof that for many PTS's, including the Calculus of Constructions, this extension preserves strong normalisation. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 20 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, an extension of Pure Type Systems (PTS's) with definitions is presented. We prove this extension preserves many of the properties of PTS's. The main result is a proof that for many PTS's, including the Calculus of Constructions, this extension preserves strong normalisation.
Implicit Coercions in Type Systems
 In Selected Papers from the International Workshop TYPES '95
, 1995
"... . We propose a notion of pure type system with implicit coercions. In our framework, judgements are extended with a context of coercions \Delta and the application rule is modified so as to allow coercions to be left implicit. The setting supports multiple inheritance and can be applied to all type ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We propose a notion of pure type system with implicit coercions. In our framework, judgements are extended with a context of coercions \Delta and the application rule is modified so as to allow coercions to be left implicit. The setting supports multiple inheritance and can be applied to all type theories with \Pitypes. One originality of our work is to propose a computational interpretation for implicit coercions. In this paper, we demonstrate how this interpretation allows a strict control on the logical properties of pure type systems with implicit coecions. 1 Introduction The increasing importance of mathematical software has been accompanied by a drift of mainstream mathematics towards mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics. Before mathematical software, formal systems were generally seen both by logicians and mathematicians as safe heavens into which mathematics could theoretically be embedded. With powerful mathematical software, there is now a genuine interes...
Secondorder unification and type inference for Churchstyle polymorphism
 In Conference Record of POPL 98: The 25TH ACM SIGPLANSIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
, 1998
"... We present a proof of the undecidability of type inference for the Churchstyle system F  an abstraction of polymorphism. A natural reduction from the secondorder unification problem to type inference leads to strong restriction on instances  arguments of variables cannot contain variables. T ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a proof of the undecidability of type inference for the Churchstyle system F  an abstraction of polymorphism. A natural reduction from the secondorder unification problem to type inference leads to strong restriction on instances  arguments of variables cannot contain variables. This requires another proof of the undecidability of the secondorder unification since known results use variables in arguments of other variables. Moreover, our proof uses elementary techniques, which is important from the methodological point of view, because Goldfarb's proof [Gol81] highly relies on the undecidability of the tenth Hilbert's problem. 1 1 Introduction The Churchstyle system F was independently introduced by Girard [Gir72] and Reynolds [Rey74] as an extension of the simplytyped calculus a type system introduced of H. B. Curry [Cur69]. As usual for type systems, the decidability of so called sequent decision problems was considered. A sequent decision problem in some ty...
Pure Type Systems in Rewriting Logic
 In Proc. of LFM’99: Workshop on Logical Frameworks and MetaLanguages
, 1999
"... . The logical and operational aspects of rewriting logic as a logical framework are illustrated in detail by representing pure type systems as object logics. More precisely, we apply membership equational logic, the equational sublogic of rewriting logic, to specify pure type systems as they can be ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. The logical and operational aspects of rewriting logic as a logical framework are illustrated in detail by representing pure type systems as object logics. More precisely, we apply membership equational logic, the equational sublogic of rewriting logic, to specify pure type systems as they can be found in the literature and also a new variant of pure type systems with explicit names that solves the problems with closure under conversion in a very satisfactory way. Furthermore, we use rewriting logic itself to give a formal operational description of type checking, that directly serves as an ecient type checking algorithm. The work reported here is part of a more ambitious project concerned with the development in Maude [7] of a proof assistant for OCC, the open calculus of constructions, an equational extension of the calculus of constructions. 1 Introduction This paper is a detailed case study on the ease and naturalness with which a family of higherorder formal systems, namely...
On Implicit Arguments
, 1995
"... A typechecker for a typed calculus having implicit arguments is presented. The typechecker works in such a way that the uniqueness of implicit arguments is always preserved during reduction. Consequently, when it compares two terms by reduction, it can reduce them without inferring implicit argumen ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A typechecker for a typed calculus having implicit arguments is presented. The typechecker works in such a way that the uniqueness of implicit arguments is always preserved during reduction. Consequently, when it compares two terms by reduction, it can reduce them without inferring implicit arguments. Before describing the typechecker, we analyze various situations where the uniqueness of implicit arguments is not preserved by naively defined reduction. ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THIS REPORT The preliminary version of this paper appeared in Logic, Language and Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.792, 1994, pp.1030. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT First issue 40 copies. This technical report is available via anonymous FTP from ftp.is.s.utokyo.ac.jp (directory /pub/techreports). SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES REPORT DATE January 1, 1995 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES 31 WRITTEN LANGUAGE English NO. OF REFERENCES 12 DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SCIENCE Faculty of Science, Universit...
The Calculus of Constructions and Higher Order Logic
 In preparation
, 1992
"... The Calculus of Constructions (CC) ([Coquand 1985]) is a typed lambda calculus for higher order intuitionistic logic: proofs of the higher order logic are interpreted as lambda terms and formulas as types. It is also the union of Girard's system F! ([Girard 1972]), a higher order typed lambda calcul ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Calculus of Constructions (CC) ([Coquand 1985]) is a typed lambda calculus for higher order intuitionistic logic: proofs of the higher order logic are interpreted as lambda terms and formulas as types. It is also the union of Girard's system F! ([Girard 1972]), a higher order typed lambda calculus, and a first order dependent typed lambda calculus in the style of de Bruijn's Automath ([de Bruijn 1980]) or MartinLof's intuitionistic theory of types ([MartinLof 1984]). Using the impredicative coding of data types in F! , the Calculus of Constructions thus becomes a higher order language for the typing of functional programs. We shall introduce and try to explain CC by exploiting especially the first point of view, by introducing a typed lambda calculus that faithfully represent higher order predicate logic (so for this system the CurryHoward `formulasastypes isomorphism' is really an isomorphism.) Then we discuss some propositions that are provable in CC but not in the higher or...
Typechecking in Pure Type Systems
 Informal proceedings of Logical Frameworks'92
, 1992
"... Introduction This work is motivated by two related problems. The first is to find reasonable algorithms for typechecking Pure Type Systems [Bar91] (PTS); the second is a technical question about PTS, the so called Expansion Postponment property (EP), which is tantalizingly simple but remains unsolv ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction This work is motivated by two related problems. The first is to find reasonable algorithms for typechecking Pure Type Systems [Bar91] (PTS); the second is a technical question about PTS, the so called Expansion Postponment property (EP), which is tantalizingly simple but remains unsolved. There are several implementations of formal systems that are either PTS or closely related to PTS. For example, LEGO [LP92] implements the Pure Calculus of Constructions [CH88] (PCC), the Extended Calculus of Constructions [Luo90] and the Edinburgh Logical Framework [HHP87]. ELF [Pfe89] implements LF; CONSTRUCTOR [Hel91] implements arbitrary PTS with finite set of sorts. Are these implementations actually correct? It is not difficult to find a natural efficient algorithm that is provably sound (Section 3), but completeness is more difficult. In fact Jutting has shown typechecking is decidable for all normalizing PTS with a finite set of sorts [vBJ92], but his algorithm, which com