Results 21  30
of
210
Intuitionistic Model Constructions and Normalization Proofs
, 1998
"... We investigate semantical normalization proofs for typed combinatory logic and weak calculus. One builds a model and a function `quote' which inverts the interpretation function. A normalization function is then obtained by composing quote with the interpretation function. Our models are just like ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate semantical normalization proofs for typed combinatory logic and weak calculus. One builds a model and a function `quote' which inverts the interpretation function. A normalization function is then obtained by composing quote with the interpretation function. Our models are just like the intended model, except that the function space includes a syntactic component as well as a semantic one. We call this a `glued' model because of its similarity with the glueing construction in category theory. Other basic type constructors are interpreted as in the intended model. In this way we can also treat inductively defined types such as natural numbers and Brouwer ordinals. We also discuss how to formalize terms, and show how one model construction can be used to yield normalization proofs for two different typed calculi  one with explicit and one with implicit substitution. The proofs are formalized using MartinLof's type theory as a meta language and mechanized using the A...
Pure type systems formalized
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications
, 1993
"... ..."
Set Theory for Verification: II  Induction and Recursion
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 2000
"... A theory of recursive definitions has been mechanized in Isabelle's ZermeloFraenkel (ZF) set theory. The objective is to support the formalization of particular recursive definitions for use in verification, semantics proofs and other computational reasoning. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A theory of recursive definitions has been mechanized in Isabelle's ZermeloFraenkel (ZF) set theory. The objective is to support the formalization of particular recursive definitions for use in verification, semantics proofs and other computational reasoning.
A finite axiomatization of inductiverecursive definitions
 Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, volume 1581 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1999
"... Inductionrecursion is a schema which formalizes the principles for introducing new sets in MartinLöf’s type theory. It states that we may inductively define a set while simultaneously defining a function from this set into an arbitrary type by structural recursion. This extends the notion of an in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Inductionrecursion is a schema which formalizes the principles for introducing new sets in MartinLöf’s type theory. It states that we may inductively define a set while simultaneously defining a function from this set into an arbitrary type by structural recursion. This extends the notion of an inductively defined set substantially and allows us to introduce universes and higher order universes (but not a Mahlo universe). In this article we give a finite axiomatization of inductiverecursive definitions. We prove consistency by constructing a settheoretic model which makes use of one Mahlo cardinal. 1
A Predicative Analysis of Structural Recursion
, 1999
"... We introduce a language based upon lambda calculus with products, coproducts and strictly positive inductive types that allows the definition of recursive terms. We present the implementation (foetus) of a syntactical check that ensures that all such terms are structurally recursive, i.e., recursive ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a language based upon lambda calculus with products, coproducts and strictly positive inductive types that allows the definition of recursive terms. We present the implementation (foetus) of a syntactical check that ensures that all such terms are structurally recursive, i.e., recursive calls appear only with arguments structurally smaller than the input parameters of terms considered. To ensure the correctness of the termination checker, we show that all structurally recursive terms are normalizing with respect to a given operational semantics. To this end, we define a semantics on all types and a structural ordering on the values in this semantics and prove that all values are accessible with regard to this ordering. Finally, we point out how to do this proof predicatively using set based operators.
Syntax and Semantics of Dependent Types
 Semantics and Logics of Computation
, 1997
"... ion is written as [x: oe]M instead of x: oe:M and application is written M(N) instead of App [x:oe] (M; N ). 1 Iterated abstractions and applications are written [x 1 : oe 1 ; : : : ; x n : oe n ]M and M(N 1 ; : : : ; N n ), respectively. The lacking type information can be inferred. The universe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 40 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ion is written as [x: oe]M instead of x: oe:M and application is written M(N) instead of App [x:oe] (M; N ). 1 Iterated abstractions and applications are written [x 1 : oe 1 ; : : : ; x n : oe n ]M and M(N 1 ; : : : ; N n ), respectively. The lacking type information can be inferred. The universe is written Set instead of U . The Eloperator is omitted. For example the \Pitype is described by the following constant and equality declarations (understood in every valid context): ` \Pi : (oe: Set; : (oe)Set)Set ` App : (oe: Set; : (oe)Set; m: \Pi(oe; ); n: oe) (m) ` : (oe: Set; : (oe)Set; m: (x: oe) (x))\Pi(oe; ) oe: Set; : (oe)Set; m: (x: oe) (x); n: oe ` App(oe; ; (oe; ; m); n) = m(n) Notice, how terms with free variables are represented as framework abstractions (in the type of ) and how substitution is represented as framework application (in the type of App and in the equation). In this way the burden of dealing correctly with variables, substitution, and binding is s...
TypeBased Termination of Recursive Definitions
, 2002
"... This article The purpose of this paper is to introduce b, a simply typed calculus that supports typebased recursive definitions. Although heavily inspired from previous work by Giménez (Giménez 1998) and closely related to recent work by Amadio and Coupet (Amadio and CoupetGrimal 1998), the techn ..."
Abstract

Cited by 39 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This article The purpose of this paper is to introduce b, a simply typed calculus that supports typebased recursive definitions. Although heavily inspired from previous work by Giménez (Giménez 1998) and closely related to recent work by Amadio and Coupet (Amadio and CoupetGrimal 1998), the technical machinery behind our system puts a slightly different emphasis on the interpretation of types. More precisely, we formalize the notion of typebased termination using a restricted form of type dependency (a.k.a. indexed types), as popularized by (Xi and Pfenning 1998; Xi and Pfenning 1999). This leads to a simple and intuitive system which is robust under several extensions, such as mutually inductive datatypes and mutually recursive function definitions; however, such extensions are not treated in the paper
Modelling General Recursion in Type Theory
 Mathematical Structures in Computer Science
, 2002
"... Constructive type theory is an expressive programming language where both algorithms and proofs can be represented. However, general recursive algorithms have no direct formalisation in type theory since they contain recursive calls that satisfy no syntactic condition guaranteeing termination. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Constructive type theory is an expressive programming language where both algorithms and proofs can be represented. However, general recursive algorithms have no direct formalisation in type theory since they contain recursive calls that satisfy no syntactic condition guaranteeing termination.
On the Interpretation of Type Theory in Locally Cartesian Closed Categories
 Proceedings of Computer Science Logic, Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1994
"... . We show how to construct a model of dependent type theory (category with attributes) from a locally cartesian closed category (lccc). This allows to define a semantic function interpreting the syntax of type theory in an lccc. We sketch an application which gives rise to an interpretation of exten ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We show how to construct a model of dependent type theory (category with attributes) from a locally cartesian closed category (lccc). This allows to define a semantic function interpreting the syntax of type theory in an lccc. We sketch an application which gives rise to an interpretation of extensional type theory in intensional type theory. 1 Introduction and Motivation Interpreting dependent type theory in locally cartesian closed categories (lcccs) and more generally in (non split) fibrational models like the ones described in [7] is an intricate problem. The reason is that in order to interpret terms associated with substitution like pairing for \Sigma types or application for \Pitypes one needs a semantical equivalent to syntactic substitution. To clarify the issue let us have a look at the "naive" approach described in Seely's seminal paper [14] which contains a subtle inaccuracy. Assume some dependently typed calculus like the one defined in [10] and an lccc C (a category ...