No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An untyped higher order logic with Y combinator
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 March 2014
Abstract
We define a higher order logic which has only a notion of sort rather than a notion of type, and which permits all terms of the untyped lambda calculus and allows the use of the Y combinator in writing recursive predicates. The consistency of the logic is maintained by a distinction between use and mention, as in Gilmore's logics. We give a consistent model theory, a proof system which is sound with respect to the model theory, and a cut-elimination proof for the proof system. We also give examples showing what formulas can and cannot be used in the logic.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2007
References
REFERENCES
[1]Andrews, James H., A weakly-typed higher order logic with general lambda terms and Y comhinator, Proceedings, works in progress track, 15th international conference on theorem proving in higher order logics (TPHOLs '02), NASA Conference Publication CP-2002-211736. Hampton Roads, Virginia, 08 2002, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
[2]Andrews, James H., Cut elimination for a weakly typed higher order logic, Technical Report 611, Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario, 12 2003.Google Scholar
[3]Apostoli, Peter and Kanda, Akira, Parts of the continuum: towards a modern ontology of science, Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and the Humanities, 1996, Accepted for publication.Google Scholar
[4]Cardelli, Luca, Type systems, CRC handbook of computer science and engineering, CRC Press, 1996, pp. 2208–2236.Google Scholar
[5]Chen, Weidong, Kifer, Michael, and Warren, David S., HiLog: A first-order semantics of higher-order logic programming constructs, Proceedings of the North American conference on logic programming, 10 1989, pp. 1090–1114.Google Scholar
[6]Church, Alonzo, A formulation of the simple theory of types, this Journal, vol. 5 (1940). pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
[7]The Coq Development Team, The Coq proof assistant reference manual version 7.2, Technical Report 255, INRIA, 2002.Google Scholar
[8]Coquand, Thierry, An analysis of Girard's paradox, First IEEE symposium on logic in computer science (Cambridge, Massachusetts), 06 1986, pp. 227–236.Google Scholar
[9]Gilmore, Paul C., NaDSyL and some applications, Proceedings of the Kurt Gödel colloquium (Vienna), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1289, Springer, 1997, pp. 153–166.Google Scholar
[10]Gilmore, Paul C., An intensional type theory: Motivation and cut-elimination, this Journal, vol. 66 (2001). no. 1, pp. 383–400.Google Scholar
[11]Gilmore, Paul C., Logicism renewed: Logical foundations for mathematics and computer science, Lecture Notes in Logic, no. 23, Association for Symbolic Logic / A K Peters, Ltd., Wellesley, MA, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Gordon, M. J. C. and Melham, T. F., Introduction to HOL: A theorem proving environment for higher order logic, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
[13]Henkin, Leon, Completeness in the theory of types, this JOurnal, vol. 15 (1950), pp. 81–91.Google Scholar
[14]Hindley, J. Roger and Seldin, Jonathan P., Introduction to comhinators and lambda calculus, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, no. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.Google Scholar
[15]Kamareddine, Fairouz, A system at the cross-roads of functional and logic programming, Science of Computer Programming, vol. 19 (1992), pp. 239–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar