skip to main content
10.1145/3531130.3533373acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslicsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Linear-Algebraic Models of Linear Logic as Categories of Modules over Σ-Semirings✱

Published:04 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

A number of models of linear logic are based on or closely related to linear algebra, in the sense that morphisms are “matrices” over appropriate coefficient sets. Examples include models based on coherence spaces, finiteness spaces and probabilistic coherence spaces, as well as the relational and weighted relational models. This paper introduces a unified framework based on module theory, making the linear algebraic aspect of the above models more explicit. Specifically we consider modules over Σ-semirings R, which are ring-like structures with partially-defined countable sums, and show that morphisms in the above models are actually R-linear maps in the standard algebraic sense for appropriate R. An advantage of our algebraic treatment is that the category of R-modules is locally presentable, from which it easily follows that this category becomes a model of intuitionistic linear logic with the cofree exponential. We then discuss constructions of classical models and show that the above-mentioned models are examples of our constructions.

References

  1. J. Adamek and J. Rosicky. 1994. Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511600579Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Michael Barr. 1991. Accessible categories and models of linear logic. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 69, 3 (1991), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(91)90020-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Raphaëlle Crubillé, Thomas Ehrhard, Michele Pagani, and Christine Tasson. 2017. The Free Exponential Modality of Probabilistic Coherence Spaces. In FoSSaCS, Vol. 7794. 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54458-7_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Vincent Danos and Thomas Ehrhard. 2011. Probabilistic coherence spaces as a model of higher-order probabilistic computation. Information and Computation 209, 6 (2011), 966–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2011.02.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Thomas Ehrhard. 2002. On Köthe sequence spaces and linear logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 12, 05 (2002), 579–623. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129502003729Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Thomas Ehrhard. 2005. Finiteness spaces. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 15, 4 (2005), 615–646. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129504004645Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Thomas Ehrhard. 2012. The Scott model of linear logic is the extensional collapse of its relational model. Theoretical Computer Science 424 (2012), 20–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2011.11.027Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Thomas Ehrhard and Laurent Regnier. 2008. Uniformity and the Taylor expansion of ordinary lambda-terms. Theoretical Computer Science 403, 2-3 (2008), 347–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2008.06.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Thomas Ehrhard, Christine Tasson, and Michele Pagani. 2014. Probabilistic coherence spaces are fully abstract for probabilistic PCF. Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages - POPL ’14(2014), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1145/2535838.2535865Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jean-Yves Girard. 1987. Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1 (1987), 1–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(87)90045-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jean-Yves Girard. 1989. Towards a geometry of interaction. In Categories in Computer Science and Logic. 69–108. https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/092/1003197Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J.-Y. Girard. 1995. Linear Logic: its syntax and semantics. In Advances in Linear Logic, Jean-Yves Girard, Yves Lafont, and Laurent Regnier (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511629150.002Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jean-Yves Girard. 2004. Between Logic and Quantic: a Tract. Linear Logic in Computer Science(2004), 346–381. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511550850.011Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Esfandiar Haghverdi. 2000. Unique decomposition categories, Geometry of Interaction and combinatory logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 10, 2 (2000), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129599003035Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Esfandiar Haghverdi. 2001. Partially Additive Categories and Fully Complete Models of Linear Logic. Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications(2001), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45413-6_18Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. P Hines and P Scott. 2007. Conditional quantum iteration from categorical traces. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.4399&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Naohiko Hoshino. 2012. A representation theorem for unique decomposition categories. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 286 (2012), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2012.08.014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Martin Hyland and Andrea Schalk. 2003. Glueing and orthogonality for models of linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 294, 1-2 (2003), 183–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00241-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Bart Jacobs. 1994. Semantics of weakening and contraction. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 69, 1 (1994), 73–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-0072(94)90020-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. James Laird. 2016. Fixed Points In Quantitative Semantics. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1145/2933575.2934569Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jim Laird, Giulio Manzonetto, Guy McCusker, and Michele Pagani. 2013. Weighted Relational Models of Typed Lambda-Calculi. 2013 28th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (2013), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2013.36Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. François Lamarche. 1992. Quantitative domains and infinitary algebras. Theoretical Computer Science 94, 1 (1992), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(92)90323-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. Loader. 1994. Linear logic, totality and full completeness. Proceedings - Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (1994), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1109/lics.1994.316060Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ernest G. Manes and Michael A. Arbib. 1986. Algebraic Approaches to Program Semantics. Springer New York, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4962-7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul-André Melliès. 2003. Categorical models of linear logic revisited. July (2003). http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00154229%5Cnhttp://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/$$mellies/papers/catmodels.psGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Paul-André Melliès, Nicolas Tabareau, and Christine Tasson. 2009. An Explicit Formula for the Free Exponential Modality of Linear Logic. In ICALP, Vol. 28. 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02930-1_21Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Paul André Melliès, Nicolas Tabareau, and Christine Tasson. 2018. An explicit formula for the free exponential modality of linear logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 28, 7 (2018), 1253–1286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129516000426Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Sara Negri. 2002. Continuous Domains as Formal Spaces. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 12, 1 (2002), 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129501003450Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Michele Pagani, Peter Selinger, and Benoît Valiron. 2014. Applying quantitative semantics to higher-order quantum computing. Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages - POPL ’14(2014), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1145/2535838.2535879 arxiv:1311.2290Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. E. Palmgren and S. J. Vickers. 2007. Partial Horn logic and cartesian categories. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 145, 3 (2007), 314–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2006.10.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Hans E. Porst. 2008. On categories of monoids, comonoids, and bimonoids. Quaestiones Mathematicae 31, 2 (2008), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.2989/QM.2008.31.2.2.474Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Peter Selinger. 2004. Towards a quantum programming language. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14, 4 (2004), 56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129504004256Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Takeshi Tsukada and Kazuyuki Asada. 2022. Linear-Algebraic Models of Linear Logic as Categories of Modules over Sigma-Semirings. CoRR abs/2204.10589(2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.10589 arXiv:2204.10589Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Takeshi Tsukada, Kazuyuki Asada, and C.-H. Luke Ong. 2017. Generalised species of rigid resource terms. Proceedings - Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (2017), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2017.8005093Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Takeshi Tsukada, Kazuyuki Asada, and C.-H. Luke Ong. 2018. Species, profunctors and Taylor expansion weighted by SMCC: A unified framework for modelling nondeterministic, probabilistic and quantum programs. Proceedings - Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (2018), 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209108.3209157Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Glynn Winskel. 2004. Linearity and Nonlinearity in Distributed Computation. In Linear Logic in Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 151–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550850.005Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    LICS '22: Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
    August 2022
    817 pages
    ISBN:9781450393515
    DOI:10.1145/3531130

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 4 August 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate143of386submissions,37%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format