Results 1 
3 of
3
On Girard’s “Candidats de Réductibilité
 Logic and Computer Science
, 1990
"... Abstract: We attempt to elucidate the conditions required on Girard’s candidates of reducibility (in French, “candidats de reductibilité”) in order to establish certain properties of various typed lambda calculi, such as strong normalization and ChurchRosser property. We present two generalizations ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract: We attempt to elucidate the conditions required on Girard’s candidates of reducibility (in French, “candidats de reductibilité”) in order to establish certain properties of various typed lambda calculi, such as strong normalization and ChurchRosser property. We present two generalizations of the candidates of reducibility, an untyped version in the line of Tait and Mitchell, and a typed version which is an adaptation of Girard’s original method. As an application of this general result, we give two proofs of strong normalization for the secondorder polymorphic lambda calculus under ⌘reduction (and thus underreduction). We present two sets of conditions for the typed version of the candidates. The first set consists of conditions similar to those used by Stenlund (basically the typed version of Tait’s conditions), and the second set consists of Girard’s original conditions. We also compare these conditions, and prove that Girard’s conditions are stronger than Tait’s conditions. We give a new proof of the ChurchRosser theorem for bothreduction and ⌘reduction, using the modified version of Girard’s method. We also compare various proofs that have appeared in the literature (see section 11). We conclude by sketching the extension of the above results to Girard’s higherorder polymorphic calculus F!, and in appendix 1, to F! with product types. i 1
Partial computations in constructive type theory
 JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION
, 1991
"... Constructive type theory as conceived by Per MartinLöf has a very rich type system, but partial functions cannot be typed. This also makes it impossible to directly write recursive programs. In this paper a constructive type theory Red is defined which includes a partial type constructor A; objects ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Constructive type theory as conceived by Per MartinLöf has a very rich type system, but partial functions cannot be typed. This also makes it impossible to directly write recursive programs. In this paper a constructive type theory Red is defined which includes a partial type constructor A; objects in the type A may diverge, but if they converge, they must be members of A. A fixed point typing principle is given to allow typing of recursive functions. The extraction paradigm of type theory, whereby programs are automatically extracted from constructive proofs, is extended to allow extraction of fixed points. There is a Scott fixed point induction principle for reasoning about these functions. Soundness of the theory is proven. Type theory becomes a more expressive programming logic as a result.
Appendix 1: Product Types in F !
"... for short, raw terms) is de ned inductively as follows: c 2 P, whenever c 2 , x 2 P, whenever x 2 X , (MN) 2 P, whenever M;N 2 P, hM; Ni 2 P, whenever M;N 2 P, 1 (M); 2 (M) 2 P, whenever M 2 P, (x: : M) 2 P, whenever x 2 X , 2 T , and M 2 P, (M) 2 P, whenever 2 T and M 2 P, (t: K: M) ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
for short, raw terms) is de ned inductively as follows: c 2 P, whenever c 2 , x 2 P, whenever x 2 X , (MN) 2 P, whenever M;N 2 P, hM; Ni 2 P, whenever M;N 2 P, 1 (M); 2 (M) 2 P, whenever M 2 P, (x: : M) 2 P, whenever x 2 X , 2 T , and M 2 P, (M) 2 P, whenever 2 T and M 2 P, (t: K: M) 2 P, whenever t 2 V, K 2 K, and M 2 P. The notions of substitution and equivalence are extended in the obvious way. In order to deal with product types, it is necessary to add the following kindchecking rule: . : ? . : ? . : ? () The de nition of the relation ! ! does not have to be changed, since the congruence rule takes care of ), , and K . It is easy to see that corollary 6.18 and corollary 6.19 hold for the new class of types. Thus, every ( equivalence class of) type that kindchecks has a unique normal form. The following inference rules need to be added to the proof system used for typechecking terms. . M : . N :