Results 1  10
of
106
ParameterPassing and the Lambda Calculus
, 1991
"... The choice of a parameterpassing technique is an important decision in the design of a highlevel programming language. To clarify some of the semantic aspects of the decision, we develop, analyze, and compare modifications of the calculus for the most common parameterpassing techniques, i.e., ca ..."
Abstract

Cited by 193 (23 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The choice of a parameterpassing technique is an important decision in the design of a highlevel programming language. To clarify some of the semantic aspects of the decision, we develop, analyze, and compare modifications of the calculus for the most common parameterpassing techniques, i.e., callbyvalue and callbyname combined with passbyworth and passby reference, respectively. More specifically, for each parameterpassing technique we provide 1. a program rewriting semantics for a language with sideeffects and firstclass procedures based on the respective parameterpassing technique; 2. an equational theory that is derived from the rewriting semantics in a uniform manner; 3. a formal analysis of the correspondence between the calculus and the semantics; and 4. a strong normalization theorem for the imperative fragment of the theory (when applicable). A comparison of the various systems reveals that Algol's callbyname indeed satisfies the wellknown fi rule of the orig...
From ProofNets to Interaction Nets
 Advances in Linear Logic
, 1994
"... Introduction If we consider the interpretation of proofs as programs, say in intuitionistic logic, the question of equality between proofs becomes crucial: The syntax introduces meaningless distinctions whereas the (denotational) semantics makes excessive identifications. This question does not hav ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction If we consider the interpretation of proofs as programs, say in intuitionistic logic, the question of equality between proofs becomes crucial: The syntax introduces meaningless distinctions whereas the (denotational) semantics makes excessive identifications. This question does not have a simple answer in general, but it leads to the notion of proofnet, which is one of the main novelties of linear logic. This has been already explained in [Gir87] and [GLT89]. The notion of interaction net introduced in [Laf90] comes from an attempt to implement the reduction of these proofnets. It happens to be a simple model of parallel computation, and so it can be presented independently of linear logic, as in [Laf94]. However, we think that it is also useful to relate the exact origin of interaction nets, especially for readers with some knowledge in linear logic. We take this opportunity to give a survey of the theory of proofnets, including a new proof of the sequentializ
Linear Logic Without Boxes
, 1992
"... Girard's original definition of proof nets for linear logic involves boxes. The box is the unit for erasing and duplicating fragments of proof nets. It imposes synchronization, limits sharing, and impedes a completely local view of computation. Here we describe an implementation of proof nets w ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Girard's original definition of proof nets for linear logic involves boxes. The box is the unit for erasing and duplicating fragments of proof nets. It imposes synchronization, limits sharing, and impedes a completely local view of computation. Here we describe an implementation of proof nets without boxes. Proof nets are translated into graphs of the sort used in optimal calculus implementations; computation is performed by simple graph rewriting. This graph implementation helps in understanding optimal reductions in the calculus and in the various programming languages inspired by linear logic. 1 Beyond the calculus The calculus is not entirely explicit about the operations of erasing and duplicating arguments. These operations are important both in the theory of the  calculus and in its implementations, yet they are typically treated somewhat informally, implicitly. The proof nets of linear logic [1] provide a refinement of the calculus where these operations become explici...
A Brief Guide to Linear Logic
, 1993
"... An overview of linear logic is given, including an extensive bibliography and a simple example of the close relationship between linear logic and computation. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 53 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
An overview of linear logic is given, including an extensive bibliography and a simple example of the close relationship between linear logic and computation.
Applications of Linear Logic to Computation: An Overview
, 1993
"... This paper is an overview of existing applications of Linear Logic (LL) to issues of computation. After a substantial introduction to LL, it discusses the implications of LL to functional programming, logic programming, concurrent and objectoriented programming and some other applications of LL, li ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper is an overview of existing applications of Linear Logic (LL) to issues of computation. After a substantial introduction to LL, it discusses the implications of LL to functional programming, logic programming, concurrent and objectoriented programming and some other applications of LL, like semantics of negation in LP, nonmonotonic issues in AI planning, etc. Although the overview covers pretty much the stateoftheart in this area, by necessity many of the works are only mentioned and referenced, but not discussed in any considerable detail. The paper does not presuppose any previous exposition to LL, and is addressed more to computer scientists (probably with a theoretical inclination) than to logicians. The paper contains over 140 references, of which some 80 are about applications of LL. 1 Linear Logic Linear Logic (LL) was introduced in 1987 by Girard [62]. From the very beginning it was recognized as relevant to issues of computation (especially concurrency and stat...
Geometry of Interaction and Linear Combinatory Algebras
, 2000
"... this paper was quite di#erent, stemming from the axiomatics of categories of tangles (although the authors were aware of possible connections to iteration theories. In fact, similar axiomatics in the symmetric case, motivated by flowcharts and "flownomials" had been developed some years ea ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper was quite di#erent, stemming from the axiomatics of categories of tangles (although the authors were aware of possible connections to iteration theories. In fact, similar axiomatics in the symmetric case, motivated by flowcharts and "flownomials" had been developed some years earlier by Stefanescu (Stefanescu 2000).) However, the first author realized, following a stimulating discussion with Gordon Plotkin, that traced monoidal categories provided a common denominator for the axiomatics of both the Girardstyle and AbramskyJagadeesanstyle versions of the Geometry of Interaction, at the basic level of the multiplicatives. This insight was presented in (Abramsky 1996), in which Girardstyle GoI was dubbed "particlestyle", since it concerns information particles or tokens flowing around a network, while the AbramskyJagadeesan style GoI was dubbed "wavestyle", since it concerns the evolution of a global information state or "wave". Formally, this distinction is based on whether the tensor product (i.e. the symmetric monoidal structure) in the underlying category is interpreted as a coproduct (particle style) or as a product (wave style). This computational distinction between coproduct and product interpretations of the same underlying network geometry turned out to have been partially anticipated, in a rather di#erent context, in a pioneering paper by E. S. Bainbridge (Bainbridge 1976), as observed by Dusko Pavlovic. These two forms of interpretation, and ways of combining them, have also been studied recently in (Stefanescu 2000). He uses the terminology "additive" for coproductbased (i.e. our "particlestyle") and "multiplicative" for productbased (i.e. our "wavestyle"); this is not suitable for our purposes, because of the clash with Linear Logic term...
Interaction Systems I: The theory of optimal reductions
 Mathematical Structures in Computer Science
, 1994
"... We introduce a new class of higher order rewriting systems, called Interaction Systems (IS's). IS's come from Lafont's (Intuitionistic) Interaction Nets [Lafont 1990] by dropping the linearity constraint. In particular, we borrow from Interaction Nets the syntactical bipartitions o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 40 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a new class of higher order rewriting systems, called Interaction Systems (IS's). IS's come from Lafont's (Intuitionistic) Interaction Nets [Lafont 1990] by dropping the linearity constraint. In particular, we borrow from Interaction Nets the syntactical bipartitions of operators into constructors and destructors and the principle of binary interaction. As a consequence, IS's are a subclass of Klop's Combinatory Reduction Systems [Klop 1980] where the CurryHoward analogy still "makes sense". Destructors and constructors respectively corresponds to left and right logical introduction rules, interaction is cut and reduction is cutelimination. Interaction Systems have been primarily motivated by the necessity of extending the practice of optimal evaluators for calculus [Lamping 1990, Gonthier et al. 1992a] to other computational constructs as conditionals and recursion. In this paper we focus on the theoretical aspects of optimal reductions. In particular, we ge...
Interaction Combinators
 Information and Computation
, 1995
"... This paper is the continuation of the author 's work on interaction nets, inspired by Girard's proof nets for linear logic, but no preliminary knowledge of these topics is required for its reading. Introduction ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper is the continuation of the author 's work on interaction nets, inspired by Girard's proof nets for linear logic, but no preliminary knowledge of these topics is required for its reading. Introduction
Proof Nets for Intuitionistic Linear Logic
 Essential Nets, Research Report
"... Abstract. We present a class of proof nets that are specially designed for Intuitionistic Linear Logic, for which we give a correctness criterion, as well as a cutelimination procedure. The proof of sequentialization uses a special kind of oriented paths. In this paper we present a class of proof o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 37 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We present a class of proof nets that are specially designed for Intuitionistic Linear Logic, for which we give a correctness criterion, as well as a cutelimination procedure. The proof of sequentialization uses a special kind of oriented paths. In this paper we present a class of proof objects for intuitionistic linear logic with the connectives ⊗, ⊸, � and! 1; in particular we can interpret the simply typed lambda calculus, with or without product types. We call these proof nets essential nets. We will formulate a correctness criterion for them: there is an intrinsic property that characterizes the essential nets that do come from proofs in the sequent calculus; it turns out that every such (correct) essential net represents a large number of sequent proofs that differ by inessential details. Thus essential nets, as should be the case for proof nets in general, have the power of eliminating a lot of the bureaucracy in the sequent calculus. We will give a cutelimination procedure for essential nets which is based on that correctness criterion. That procedure is not one that can be said to be
Pomset Logic: A NonCommutative Extension of Classical Linear Logic
, 1997
"... We extend the multiplicative fragment of linear logic with a noncommutative connective (called before), which, roughly speaking, corresponds to sequential composition. This lead us to a calculus where the conclusion of a proof is a Partially Ordered MultiSET of formulae. We firstly examine coherenc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 36 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We extend the multiplicative fragment of linear logic with a noncommutative connective (called before), which, roughly speaking, corresponds to sequential composition. This lead us to a calculus where the conclusion of a proof is a Partially Ordered MultiSET of formulae. We firstly examine coherence semantics, where we introduce the before connective, and ordered products of formulae. Secondly we extend the syntax of multiplicative proof nets to these new operations. We then prove strong normalisation, and confluence. Coming back to the denotational semantics that we started with, we establish in an unusual way the soundness of this calculus with respect to the semantics. The converse, i.e. a kind of completeness result, is simply stated: we refer to a report for its lengthy proof. We conclude by mentioning more results, including a sequent calculus which is interpreted by both the semantics and the proof net syntax, although we are not sure that it takes all proof nets into account...