Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:40:59.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a typed Geometry of Interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2010

ESFANDIAR HAGHVERDI  and
PHILIP SCOTT
ESFANDIAR HAGHVERDI
Affiliation:
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47408, U.S.A. Email: ehaghver@indiana.edu
PHILIP SCOTT
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, 585 King Edward, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada Email: phil@mathstat.uottawa.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Girard's Geometry of Interaction (GoI) develops a mathematical framework for modelling the dynamics of cut elimination. We introduce a typed version of GoI, called Multiobject GoI for both multiplicative linear logic (MLL) and multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) with units. We present a categorical setting that includes our previous (untyped) GoI models, as well as more general models based on monoidal *-categories. Our development of multiobject GoI depends on a new theory of partial traces and trace classes, which we believe is of independent interest, as well as an abstract notion of orthogonality (which is related to work of Hyland and Schalk). We develop Girard's original theory of types, data and algorithms in our setting, and show his execution formula to be an invariant of cut elimination (under some restrictions). We prove soundness theorems for the MGoI interpretation (for Multiplicative and Multiplicative Exponential Linear Logic) in partially traced *-categories with an orthogonality. Finally, we briefly discuss the relationship between our GoI interpretation and other categorical interpretations of GoI.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 473 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramsky, S. (1996) Retracing Some Paths in Process Algebra. In: CONCUR '96. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1119 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramsky, S., Blute, R. and Panangaden, P. (1999) Nuclear and trace ideals in tensored *-categories. J. Pure and Applied Algebra 143 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramsky, S., Haghverdi, E. and Scott, P. J. (2002) Geometry of Interaction and Linear Combinatory Algebras. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 12 (5)625–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramsky, S. and Jagadeesan, R. (1994) New Foundations for the Geometry of Interaction. Information and Computation 111 (1)53–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillot, P. (1995) Abramsky–Jagadeesan–Malacaria strategies and the geometry of interaction. Mémoire de DEA, Universite Paris 7.Google Scholar
Baillot, P. and Pedicini, M. (2000) Elementary complexity and geometry of interaction. Fundamenta Informaticae 45 (1–2).Google Scholar
Blute, R., Cockett, R. and Seely, R. A. G. (2000) Feedback for linearly distributive categories: traces and fixpoints Bill(Lawvere)Fest. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 154 27–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danos, V. (1990) La logique linéaire appliquée à l'étude de divers processus de normalisation et principalement du λ-calcul, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris VII.Google Scholar
Danos, V. and Regnier, L. (1995) Proof-nets and the Hilbert Space. In: Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y. and Regnier, L. (eds.) Advances in Linear Logic. London Math. Soc. Notes 222 307–328.Google Scholar
Doplicher, S. and Roberts, J. E. (1989) A New Duality for Compact Groups. Invent. Math. 98 157–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrman, C. and Pym, D. (2004) On the Geometry of Interaction for Classical Logic (Extended Abstract). Proc. LICS 04, IEEE Computer Society Press 211–220.Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1987) Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50 (1)1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1988) Geometry of Interaction II: Deadlock-free Algorithms. In Proc. of COLOG'88. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 417 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1989) Geometry of Interaction I: Interpretation of System F. In: Proc. Logic Colloquium 88, North-Holland 221–260.Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1995) Geometry of Interaction III: Accommodating the Additives. In: Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y. and Regnier, L. (eds.) Advances in Linear Logic. London Math. Soc. Notes 222 329–389,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (2007). Le Point Aveugle (I, II), Hermann Éditeurs, Paris.Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (2008) Geometry of Interaction V: logic in the hyperfinite factor (manuscript).Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y. and Taylor, P. (1988) Proofs and Types, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 7.Google Scholar
Ghez, P., Lima, R. and Roberts, J. E. (1985) W*-categories. Pacific Journal of Math. 120 79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonthier, G., Abadi, M. and Lévy, J.-J. (1992) The geometry of optimal lambda reduction. In: POPL '92: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, ACM 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haghverdi, E. (2000a) A Categorical Approach to Linear Logic, Geometry of Proofs and Full Completeness, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Haghverdi, E. (2000b) Unique Decomposition Categories, Geometry of Interaction and combinatory logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 10 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haghverdi, E. (2006) Typed GoI for Exponentials. In: Bugliesi, M. et al. (eds.) Proc. of ICALP 2006, Part II. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4052 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haghverdi, E. and Scott, P. J. (2004a) A categorical model for the Geometry of Interaction. Theoretical Computer Science 350 (2-3)252–274. (Preliminary Version in: Automata, Languages, Programming (ICALP 2004). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3142 708–720.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haghverdi, E. and Scott, P. J. (2004b) From Geometry of Interaction to Denotational Semantics. Proceedings of CTCS2004. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 122 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haghverdi, E. and Scott, P. J. (2005) Towards a Typed Geometry of Interaction. In: Ong, L. (ed.) CSL2005 (Computer Science Logic). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3634 216–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haghverdi, E. and Scott, P. J. (2008) Proofs as polynomials. In: Bauer, A. and Mislove, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th Conference on the Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics (MFPS XXIV). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 218 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haghverdi, E. and Scott, P. J. (2010) Geometry of Interaction and the Dynamics of Proof Reduction: a tutorial. In: Coecke, B. (ed.) New Structures for Physics. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Physics 2010 339–397.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, M. (1997) Recursion from Cyclic Sharing : Traced Monoidal Categories and Models of Cyclic Lambda Calculus. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1210 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, M. (2009) On Traced Monoidal Closed Categories. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 19 (2)217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermida, C. and Mateus, P. (2003) Paracategories I: internal paracategories and saturated partial algebras. Theoretical Computer Science 109 135–156.Google Scholar
Hines, P. (2003) A categorical framework for finite state machines. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 13 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, M and Schalk, A. (2003) Glueing and Orthogonality for Models of Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science 294 183–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, A. S. A. (1998) Premonoidal categories and a graphical view of programs (see the webpage: http://klee.cs.depaul.edu/premon/; see also Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 10 (1997).)Google Scholar
Joyal, A., Street, R. and Verity, D. (1996) Traced Monoidal Categories. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 119 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurent, O. (2001) A Token Machine for Full Geometry of Interaction. In: Goos, G., Hartmanis, J. and van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) Proceedings: Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, 5th International Conference, TLCA 2001 Krakw, Poland. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2044 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1998) Categories for the Working Mathematician, 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Malacaria, P. and Regnier., L. (1991) Some Results on the Interpretation of λ-calculus in Operator Algebras. In: Proc. LICS, IEEE Press 63–72.Google Scholar
Malherbe, O. (2010) Ph.D. thesis (in preparation), Dept. of Mathematics, U. Ottawa.Google Scholar
Plotkin, G. (2003) Trace Ideals, invited lecture at MFPS 2003, Montreal.Google Scholar
Regnier, L. (1992) Lambda-calcul et Réseaux, Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris VII.Google Scholar
Schöpp, U. (2007) Stratified Bounded Affine Logic for Logarithmic Space. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), IEEE 411–420.Google Scholar
Selinger, P. (2004a) Towards a typed quantum programming language. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14 (4)527–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinger, P. (2004b) In: Selinger, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages, TUCS General Publications 33, Turku Centre for Computer Science.Google Scholar