Results 1 
5 of
5
On Computational Interpretations of the Modal Logic S4 IIIa. Termination, Confluence, Conservativity of λevQ
 INSTITUT FUR LOGIK, KOMPLEXITAT UND DEDUKTIONSSYSTEME, UNIVERSITAT
, 1996
"... A language of constructions for minimal logic is the calculus, where cutelimination is encoded as fireduction. We examine corresponding languages for the minimal version of the modal logic S4, with notions of reduction that encodes cutelimination for the corresponding sequent system. It turns o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A language of constructions for minimal logic is the calculus, where cutelimination is encoded as fireduction. We examine corresponding languages for the minimal version of the modal logic S4, with notions of reduction that encodes cutelimination for the corresponding sequent system. It turns out that a natural interpretation of the latter constructions is a calculus extended by an idealized version of Lisp's eval and quote constructs. In this Part IIIa, we examine the termination and confluence properties of the evQ and evQ H calculi. Most results are negative: the typed calculi do not terminate, the subsystems \Sigma and \Sigma H that propagate substitutions, quotations and evaluations downwards do not terminate either in the untyped case, and the untyped evQ H calculus is not confluent. However, the typed versions of \Sigma and \Sigma H do terminate, so the typed evQcalculus is confluent. It follows that the typed evQcalculus is a conservative extension of the typed S4cal...
A Few Remarks on SKInT
, 1998
"... SKIn and SKInT are two firstorder languages that have been proposed recently by Healfdene Goguen and the author. While SKIn encodes lambdacalculus reduction faithfully, standardizes and is confluent even on open terms, it normalizes only weakly in the simplytyped case. On the other hand, SKInT n ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
SKIn and SKInT are two firstorder languages that have been proposed recently by Healfdene Goguen and the author. While SKIn encodes lambdacalculus reduction faithfully, standardizes and is confluent even on open terms, it normalizes only weakly in the simplytyped case. On the other hand, SKInT normalizes strongly in the simplytyped case, standardizes and is confluent on open terms, and also encodes lambdacalculus reduction faithfully, although in a less direct way. This report has two goals. First, we show that the natural simple type system for SKInT, seen as a natural deduction system, is not exactly a proof system for intuitionistic logic, but for a very close fragment of the modal logic S4, in which intuitionistic logic is easily coded. This explains why the SKIn and SKInT typing rules are different, and why SKInT encodes lambdacalculus in a less direct way than SKIn. Second, we show that SKInT, like AE and a few other calculi of explicit substitutions, preserves strong nor...
Logical Foundations of Eval/Quote Mechanisms, and the Modal Logic S4
 IN PRESS S15708683(05)000431/FLA AID:71 Vol.•••(•••) [DTD5] P.12 (112) JAL:m1a v 1.40 Prn:15/07/2005; 8:08 jal71 by:SL p. 12 12 N. Alechina, D. Shkatov / Journal of Applied Logic
, 1997
"... Starting from the idea that cut elimination is the precise meaning of program execution, we design two languages of constructions for the minimal logic S4, yielding calculi with idealized versions of Lisp's eval and quote. The first, the S4 calculus, is based on Bierman and De Paiva's ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Starting from the idea that cut elimination is the precise meaning of program execution, we design two languages of constructions for the minimal logic S4, yielding calculi with idealized versions of Lisp's eval and quote. The first, the S4 calculus, is based on Bierman and De Paiva's proposal, and has all desirable logical properties, except for its nonoperational flavor. The second, the evQcalculus, is more complicated, but has a clear operational meaning: it is a tower of interpreters in the style of Lisp's reflexive tower. Remarkably, this language was developed from purely logical principles, but nonetheless provides some operational insight into eval/quote mechanisms. 1 Introduction Let's consider two dual questions. The first is: is there a proofsasprograms, formulasas types correspondence for the modal logic S4? There is one between minimal and intuitionistic logics and  calculi [How80], and also for classical logic [Gri90] or linear logic [Abr93], so why not S4? A...
A Proof of Weak Termination of Typed λσCalculi
, 1998
"... We show that reducing any simplytyped oeterm (resp. oe*) by applying the rules in oe (resp. oe *) eagerly always terminates, by a translation to the simplytyped calculus. This holds even with term and substitution metavariables. In fact, every reduction terminates provided that (fi)redexes ar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that reducing any simplytyped oeterm (resp. oe*) by applying the rules in oe (resp. oe *) eagerly always terminates, by a translation to the simplytyped calculus. This holds even with term and substitution metavariables. In fact, every reduction terminates provided that (fi)redexes are only contracted under socalled safe contexts; and in oe, resp. oe *normal forms, all contexts around terms of sort T are safe. The result is then extended to secondorder type systems.