Results 1 
3 of
3
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 especi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 99 (7 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...
A short and flexible proof of Strong Normalization for the Calculus of Constructions
, 1994
"... this paper can still go through (with slightly more technical effort) in case one can distinguish cases according to whether a specific subterm is a type or kind in a fixed context. The other property of type systems that is really actually required for the constructions in this paper to go through ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper can still go through (with slightly more technical effort) in case one can distinguish cases according to whether a specific subterm is a type or kind in a fixed context. The other property of type systems that is really actually required for the constructions in this paper to go through is a slight strengthening of the Stripping property (also called Generation). This property says, for example, that if \Gamma ` v:T:M : U has a derivation D, then one can find a subderivation of
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 c ..."
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...