Results 1  10
of
285
Logic Programming with Focusing Proofs in Linear Logic
 Journal of Logic and Computation
, 1992
"... The deep symmetry of Linear Logic [18] makes it suitable for providing abstract models of computation, free from implementation details which are, by nature, oriented and non symmetrical. I propose here one such model, in the area of Logic Programming, where the basic computational principle is C ..."
Abstract

Cited by 335 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The deep symmetry of Linear Logic [18] makes it suitable for providing abstract models of computation, free from implementation details which are, by nature, oriented and non symmetrical. I propose here one such model, in the area of Logic Programming, where the basic computational principle is Computation = Proof search.
Logic Programming in a Fragment of Intuitionistic Linear Logic
"... When logic programming is based on the proof theory of intuitionistic logic, it is natural to allow implications in goals and in the bodies of clauses. Attempting to prove a goal of the form D ⊃ G from the context (set of formulas) Γ leads to an attempt to prove the goal G in the extended context Γ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 305 (40 self)
 Add to MetaCart
When logic programming is based on the proof theory of intuitionistic logic, it is natural to allow implications in goals and in the bodies of clauses. Attempting to prove a goal of the form D ⊃ G from the context (set of formulas) Γ leads to an attempt to prove the goal G in the extended context Γ ∪ {D}. Thus during the bottomup search for a cutfree proof contexts, represented as the lefthand side of intuitionistic sequents, grow as stacks. While such an intuitionistic notion of context provides for elegant specifications of many computations, contexts can be made more expressive and flexible if they are based on linear logic. After presenting two equivalent formulations of a fragment of linear logic, we show that the fragment has a goaldirected interpretation, thereby partially justifying calling it a logic programming language. Logic programs based on the intuitionistic theory of hereditary Harrop formulas can be modularly embedded into this linear logic setting. Programming examples taken from theorem proving, natural language parsing, and data base programming are presented: each example requires a linear, rather than intuitionistic, notion of context to be modeled adequately. An interpreter for this logic programming language must address the problem of splitting contexts; that is, when attempting to prove a multiplicative conjunction (tensor), say G1 ⊗ G2, from the context ∆, the latter must be split into disjoint contexts ∆1 and ∆2 for which G1 follows from ∆1 and G2 follows from ∆2. Since there is an exponential number of such splits, it is important to delay the choice of a split as much as possible. A mechanism for the lazy splitting of contexts is presented based on viewing proof search as a process that takes a context, consumes part of it, and returns the rest (to be consumed elsewhere). In addition, we use collections of Kripke interpretations indexed by a commutative monoid to provide models for this logic programming language and show that logic programs admit a canonical model.
The Logic of Bunched Implications
 BULLETIN OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC
, 1999
"... We introduce a logic BI in which a multiplicative (or linear) and an additive (or intuitionistic) implication live sidebyside. The propositional version of BI arises from an analysis of the prooftheoretic relationship between conjunction and implication; it can be viewed as a merging of intuition ..."
Abstract

Cited by 190 (38 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a logic BI in which a multiplicative (or linear) and an additive (or intuitionistic) implication live sidebyside. The propositional version of BI arises from an analysis of the prooftheoretic relationship between conjunction and implication; it can be viewed as a merging of intuitionistic logic and multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The naturality of BI can be seen categorically: models of propositional BI's proofs are given by bicartesian doubly closed categories, i.e., categories which freely combine the semantics of propositional intuitionistic logic and propositional multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The predicate version of BI includes, in addition to standard additive quantifiers, multiplicative (or intensional) quantifiers # new and # new which arise from observing restrictions on structural rules on the level of terms as well as propositions. We discuss computational interpretations, based on sharing, at both the propositional and predic...
Alias Types for Recursive Data Structures
, 2000
"... Linear type systems permit programmers to deallocate or explicitly recycle memory, but they are severly restricted by the fact that they admit no aliasing. This paper describes a pseudolinear type system that allows a degree of aliasing and memory reuse as well as the ability to define complex recu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 137 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Linear type systems permit programmers to deallocate or explicitly recycle memory, but they are severly restricted by the fact that they admit no aliasing. This paper describes a pseudolinear type system that allows a degree of aliasing and memory reuse as well as the ability to define complex recursive data structures. Our type system can encode conventional linear data structures such as linear lists and trees as well as more sophisticated data structures including cyclic and doublylinked lists and trees. In the latter cases, our type system is expressive enough to represent pointer aliasing and yet safely permit destructive operations such as object deallocation. We demonstrate the flexibility of our type system by encoding two common compiler optimizations: destinationpassing style and DeutschSchorrWaite or "linkreversal" traversal algorithms.
Interaction Categories and the Foundations of Typed Concurrent Programming
 In Deductive Program Design: Proceedings of the 1994 Marktoberdorf Summer School, NATO ASI Series F
, 1995
"... We propose Interaction Categories as a new paradigm for the semantics of functional and concurrent computation. Interaction categories have specifications as objects, processes as morphisms, and interaction as composition. We introduce two key examples of interaction categories for concurrent compu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 123 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose Interaction Categories as a new paradigm for the semantics of functional and concurrent computation. Interaction categories have specifications as objects, processes as morphisms, and interaction as composition. We introduce two key examples of interaction categories for concurrent computation and indicate how a general axiomatisation can be developed. The upshot of our approach is that traditional process calculus is reconstituted in functorial form, and integrated with type theory and functional programming.
The πcalculus as a theory in linear logic: Preliminary results
 3rd Workshop on Extensions to Logic Programming, LNCS 660
, 1993
"... The agent expressions of the πcalculus can be translated into a theory of linear logic in such a way that the reflective and transitive closure of πcalculus (unlabeled) reduction is identified with “entailedby”. Under this translation, parallel composition is mapped to the multiplicative disjunct ..."
Abstract

Cited by 102 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The agent expressions of the πcalculus can be translated into a theory of linear logic in such a way that the reflective and transitive closure of πcalculus (unlabeled) reduction is identified with “entailedby”. Under this translation, parallel composition is mapped to the multiplicative disjunct (“par”) and restriction is mapped to universal quantification. Prefixing, nondeterministic choice (+), replication (!), and the match guard are all represented using nonlogical constants, which are specified using a simple form of axiom, called here a process clause. These process clauses resemble Horn clauses except that they may have multiple conclusions; that is, their heads may be the par of atomic formulas. Such multiple conclusion clauses are used to axiomatize communications among agents. Given this translation, it is nature to ask to what extent proof theory can be used to understand the metatheory of the πcalculus. We present some preliminary results along this line for π0, the “propositional ” fragment of the πcalculus, which lacks restriction and value passing (π0 is a subset of CCS). Using ideas from prooftheory, we introduce coagents and show that they can specify some testing equivalences for π0. If negationasfailuretoprove is permitted as a coagent combinator, then testing equivalence based on coagents yields observational equivalence for π0. This latter result follows from observing that coagents directly represent formulas in the HennessyMilner modal logic. 1
How to Declare an Imperative
, 1995
"... How can we integrate interaction into a purely declarative language? This tutorial describes a solution to this problem based on a monad. The solution has been implemented in the functional language Haskell and the declarative language Escher. Comparisons are given to other approaches to interaction ..."
Abstract

Cited by 98 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
How can we integrate interaction into a purely declarative language? This tutorial describes a solution to this problem based on a monad. The solution has been implemented in the functional language Haskell and the declarative language Escher. Comparisons are given to other approaches to interaction based on synchronous streams, continuations, linear logic, and side effects.
What is a Categorical Model of Intuitionistic Linear Logic?
, 1995
"... . This paper readdresses the old problem of providing a categorical model for Intuitionistic Linear Logic (ILL). In particular we compare the now standard model proposed by Seely to the lesser known one proposed by Benton, Bierman, Hyland and de Paiva. Surprisingly we find that Seely's model i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 96 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. This paper readdresses the old problem of providing a categorical model for Intuitionistic Linear Logic (ILL). In particular we compare the now standard model proposed by Seely to the lesser known one proposed by Benton, Bierman, Hyland and de Paiva. Surprisingly we find that Seely's model is unsound in that it does not preserve equality of proofs. We shall propose how to adapt Seely's definition so as to correct this problem and consider how this compares with the model due to Benton et al. 1 Intuitionistic Linear Logic For the first part we shall consider only the multiplicative, exponential fragment of Intuitionistic Linear Logic (MELL). Rather than give a detailed description of the logic and associated term calculus we assume that the reader is familiar with other work [15, 5]. The sequent calculus formulation is originally due to Girard [9] and is given below. Identity A \Gamma A \Gamma \Gamma B B; \Delta \Gamma C Cut \Gamma; \Delta \Gamma C \Gamma \Gamma A (I L ) \Gamm...
Is there a use for linear logic?
, 1991
"... Past attempts to apply Girard's linear logic have either had a clear relation to the theory (Lafont, Holmstrom, Abramsky) or a clear practical value (Guzm'an and Hudak, Wadler), but not both. This paper defines a sequence of languages based on linear logic that span the gap between theory ..."
Abstract

Cited by 90 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Past attempts to apply Girard's linear logic have either had a clear relation to the theory (Lafont, Holmstrom, Abramsky) or a clear practical value (Guzm'an and Hudak, Wadler), but not both. This paper defines a sequence of languages based on linear logic that span the gap between theory and practice. Type reconstruction in a linear type system can derive information about sharing. An approach to linear type reconstruction based on use types is presented. Applications to the array update problem are considered.