lambda calculus linear logic and symbolic computation
play

Lambda Calculus, Linear Logic and Symbolic Computation Habilitation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 13, 2022 •235 likes •1.28k views

Lambda Calculus, Linear Logic and Symbolic Computation Habilitation diriger des recherches Giulio Manzonetto giulio.manzonetto@lipn.univ-paris13.fr LIPN IRIF Universit Paris Nord Universit Paris Diderot March the 7th, 2017 Giulio

  1. λ -Calculus — Its Syntax and Semantics Syntactic and semantic tools Observational Theories Denotational Tree-like structures Semantics Scott’s continuous semantics: Böhm Trees Data ∈ D poset + extensional equalities Program = continuous function Full abstraction for H ∗ [Hyland/Wadsworth’76] ⇒ H ∗ ⊢ M = N D ∞ | = M = N ⇐ Full abstraction for H + [Coppo-Dezani-Zacchi’87] ⇒ H + ⊢ M = N D cdz | = M = N ⇐ Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 9 / 38

  2. λ -Calculus — Its Syntax and Semantics The Relational Semantics The cartesian closed category MRel : objects: sets A , B , . . . morphisms: A → B are relations from M f ( A ) to B Relational Graph Models D = ( D , i ) : injection: i : M f ( D ) × D → D Approximation Theorem [ManzonettoR, MFPS 2014] In every rgm D , � M � D = { � t � D : t is a finite approximant of BT ( M ) } Characterization of Full Abstraction for H + [BreuvartMPR, FSCD 2016] Th ( D ) = H + ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and λ -König. Characterization of Full Abstraction for H ∗ [BreuvartMR 2017] Th ( D ) = H ∗ ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and hyperimmune. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 10 / 38

  3. λ -Calculus — Its Syntax and Semantics The Relational Semantics The cartesian closed category MRel : objects: sets A , B , . . . morphisms: A → B are relations from M f ( A ) to B Relational Graph Models D = ( D , i ) : injection: i : M f ( D ) × D → D Approximation Theorem [ManzonettoR, MFPS 2014] In every rgm D , � M � D = { � t � D : t is a finite approximant of BT ( M ) } Characterization of Full Abstraction for H + [BreuvartMPR, FSCD 2016] Th ( D ) = H + ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and λ -König. Characterization of Full Abstraction for H ∗ [BreuvartMR 2017] Th ( D ) = H ∗ ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and hyperimmune. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 10 / 38

  4. λ -Calculus — Its Syntax and Semantics The Relational Semantics The cartesian closed category MRel : objects: sets A , B , . . . morphisms: A → B are relations from M f ( A ) to B Relational Graph Models D = ( D , i ) : injection: i : M f ( D ) × D → D Approximation Theorem [ManzonettoR, MFPS 2014] In every rgm D , � M � D = { � t � D : t is a finite approximant of BT ( M ) } Characterization of Full Abstraction for H + [BreuvartMPR, FSCD 2016] Th ( D ) = H + ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and λ -König. Characterization of Full Abstraction for H ∗ [BreuvartMR 2017] Th ( D ) = H ∗ ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and hyperimmune. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 10 / 38

  5. λ -Calculus — Its Syntax and Semantics The Relational Semantics The cartesian closed category MRel : objects: sets A , B , . . . morphisms: A → B are relations from M f ( A ) to B Are all theories T in the interval [ H + , H ∗ ] Relational Graph Models D = ( D , i ) : representable by relational graph models? injection: i : M f ( D ) × D → D Approximation Theorem [ManzonettoR, MFPS 2014] In every rgm D , � M � D = { � t � D : t is a finite approximant of BT ( M ) } Characterization of Full Abstraction for H + [BreuvartMPR, FSCD 2016] Th ( D ) = H + ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and λ -König. Characterization of Full Abstraction for H ∗ [BreuvartMR 2017] Th ( D ) = H ∗ ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and hyperimmune. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 10 / 38

  6. λ -Calculus — Its Syntax and Semantics The Relational Semantics The cartesian closed category MRel : objects: sets A , B , . . . morphisms: A → B are relations from M f ( A ) to B Are all theories T in the interval [ H + , H ∗ ] Relational Graph Models D = ( D , i ) : representable by relational graph models? injection: i : M f ( D ) × D → D Approximation Theorem [ManzonettoR, MFPS 2014] In every rgm D , � M � D = { � t � D : t is a finite approximant of BT ( M ) } Otherwise, is it possible to characterize all representable theories? Characterization of Full Abstraction for H + [BreuvartMPR, FSCD 2016] Th ( D ) = H + ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and λ -König. Characterization of Full Abstraction for H ∗ [BreuvartMR 2017] Th ( D ) = H ∗ ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and hyperimmune. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 10 / 38

  7. λ -Calculus — Its Syntax and Semantics The Relational Semantics The cartesian closed category MRel : objects: sets A , B , . . . morphisms: A → B are relations from M f ( A ) to B Are all theories T in the interval [ H + , H ∗ ] Relational Graph Models D = ( D , i ) : representable by relational graph models? injection: i : M f ( D ) × D → D Approximation Theorem [ManzonettoR, MFPS 2014] In every rgm D , � M � D = { � t � D : t is a finite approximant of BT ( M ) } Otherwise, is it possible to characterize all representable theories? Characterization of Full Abstraction for H + [BreuvartMPR, FSCD 2016] Th ( D ) = H + ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and λ -König. What can we say about non-extensional Characterization of Full Abstraction for H ∗ [BreuvartMR 2017] representable theories? Th ( D ) = H ∗ ⇐ ⇒ D is extensional and hyperimmune. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 10 / 38

  8. Quantitative Semantics 2. Quantitative Properties in Nondeterministic Settings Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 11 / 38

  9. Quantitative Semantics Semantics of Non-Determinism Nondeterministic Functional Programming Languages Denotational characterize Operational properties Semantics Semantics Execution properties I/O flow Termination Contextual equivalence Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 12 / 38

  10. Quantitative Semantics Semantics of Non-Determinism Nondeterministic Functional Programming Languages Denotational characterize Operational properties Semantics Semantics Properties of the model Execution properties Soundness I/O flow Adequacy Termination Full Abstraction Contextual equivalence Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 12 / 38

  11. Quantitative Semantics Semantics of Non-Determinism Nondeterministic Functional Programming Languages Denotational characterize Operational properties Semantics Semantics Properties of the model Qualitative properties Soundness I/O flow Adequacy Termination Full Abstraction Contextual equivalence Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 12 / 38

  12. Quantitative Semantics Quantitative properties input output P → · → · → · · · → · → · → i o “black box” Intensional view on Programs We need to “open the box”. . . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 13 / 38

  13. Quantitative Semantics Quantitative properties input output → · → · → · · · → · → · → i o Intensional view on Programs We need to “open the box”. . . Quantitative Properties Number of steps to termination, Number of calls to the argument at runtime, Amount of resources used during the computation, Non-deterministic setting: Number of “ways” to get the output. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 13 / 38

  14. Quantitative Semantics Quantitative properties input output · · · · · · · i o · · · · Intensional view on Programs We need to “open the box”. . . Quantitative Properties Number of steps to termination, Number of calls to the argument at runtime, Amount of resources used during the computation, Non-deterministic setting: Number of “ways” to get the output. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 13 / 38

  15. Quantitative Semantics Semantics of Non-Determinism Nondeterministic Functional Programming Languages Denotational characterize Operational properties Semantics Semantics Properties of the model Qualitative properties Soundness I/O flow Adequacy Termination Full Abstraction Contextual equivalence Quantitative properties # steps to termination ? # calls to argument # resources needed # ways to get the output Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 14 / 38

  16. Quantitative Semantics Semantics of Non-Determinism Nondeterministic Functional Programming Languages Denotational characterize Operational properties Semantics Semantics Properties of the model Qualitative properties Soundness I/O flow Adequacy Termination Full Abstraction Contextual equivalence Quantitative properties # steps to termination We need quantitative models! # calls to argument # resources needed # ways to get the output Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 14 / 38

  17. Quantitative Semantics The Relational Semantics is Quantitative The category MRel Data/Objects: sets Program/Morphism A → B : relation from M f ( A ) and B . # calls to the argument output � P � ⊆ M f ( A ) × B Example A program like M = λ n . n ∗ n : Nat → Nat is interpreted by the relation � M � = { ([ n 1 , n 2 ] , n 1 ∗ n 2 ) | n 1 , n 2 ∈ N } Multiset of cardinality two ⇒ M uses its argument twice. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 15 / 38

  18. Quantitative Semantics The Relational Semantics is Quantitative The category MRel Data/Objects: sets Program/Morphism A → B : relation from M f ( A ) and B . # calls to the argument output � P � ⊆ M f ( A ) × B Example A program like M = λ n . n ∗ n : Nat → Nat is interpreted by the relation � M � = { ([ n 1 , n 2 ] , n 1 ∗ n 2 ) | n 1 , n 2 ∈ N } Multiset of cardinality two ⇒ M uses its argument twice. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 15 / 38

  19. Quantitative Semantics The Relational Semantics is Quantitative The category MRel Data/Objects: sets Program/Morphism A → B : relation from M f ( A ) and B . # calls to the argument output � P � ⊆ M f ( A ) × B Example A program like M = λ n . n ∗ n : Nat → Nat is interpreted by the relation � M � = { ([ n 1 , n 2 ] , n 1 ∗ n 2 ) | n 1 , n 2 ∈ N } NB: Non-deterministic setting! Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 15 / 38

  20. Quantitative Semantics Replace qualitative by quantitative methods Qualitative methods Quantitative methods Continuous semantics Relational Semantics � M � = cont. function A → B � M � = relation ⊆ M f ( A ) × B � M � = � A ∈ App ( M ) � A � Appr. Thm. � M � = � t ∈T ( M ) � t � Appr. Thm. Böhm’s approximants Resource approximants λ� x | λ x . s | s · [ t 1 , . . . , t n ] (linear term) x . yA 1 · · · A n (finite tree) Taylor Expansion Böhm trees ∞ 1 � BT ( M ) = � A T ( MN ) = n ! M [ N 1 , . . . , N n ] A ∈ App ( BT ( M )) n = 0 Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 16 / 38

  21. Quantitative Semantics Replace qualitative by quantitative methods Qualitative methods Quantitative methods For the resource Continuous semantics Relational Semantics calculus, look in the HdR thesis! � M � = cont. function A → B � M � = relation ⊆ M f ( A ) × B � M � = � A ∈ App ( M ) � A � Appr. Thm. � M � = � t ∈T ( M ) � t � Appr. Thm. Böhm’s approximants Resource approximants λ� x | λ x . s | s · [ t 1 , . . . , t n ] (linear term) x . yA 1 · · · A n (finite tree) Taylor Expansion Böhm trees ∞ 1 � BT ( M ) = � A T ( MN ) = n ! M [ N 1 , . . . , N n ] A ∈ App ( BT ( M )) n = 0 Manzonetto et Al. [2010-2013] Syntactic properties + model theory for Ehrhard’s resource calculus. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 16 / 38

  22. Quantitative Semantics Some Quantitative Properties Bound on the length of the (linear) head reduction: σ ∈ � M � ⇒ M normalizes in # σ linear-steps Theorems [DeCarvalho 2008] Call-By-Name, [Ehrhard 2012] Call-By-Value, [Díaz-CaroMP 2013] Call-By-Value with may/must non-determinism. [BreuvartMR 2017] Combinatorial proof of Approximation Theorem Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 17 / 38

  23. Quantitative Semantics Can we do better? Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 18 / 38

  24. Quantitative Semantics The Weighted Relational Model Relations as matrices A relation from M f ( A ) to B is a matrix in Bool M f ( A ) × B Generalization: Continuous semi-rings From Bool to arbitrary commutative semi-rings R = ( R , · , 1 , � ) , such that: R is a positively ordered cpo with a bottom element 0 the operators · and � are continuous. The interpretation of ⊢ M : A → B becomes a matrix � M � : M f ( A ) × B → R Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 19 / 38

  25. Quantitative Semantics The program interpretation Program ⊢ P : Nat → Nat . � P � 0 1 2 3 4 5 · · · [] p 1 , 1 p 1 , 2 p 1 , 3 p 1 , 4 p 1 , 5 p 1 , 6 · · · [ 0 ] p 2 , 1 p 2 , 2 p 2 , 3 p 2 , 4 p 2 , 5 p 2 , 6 · · · [ 0 , 1 ] p 3 , 1 p 3 , 2 p 3 , 3 p 3 , 4 p 3 , 5 p 2 , 6 · · · [ 0 , 0 ] p 4 , 1 p 4 , 2 p 4 , 3 p 4 , 4 p 4 , 5 p 3 , 6 · · · [ 1 , 1 ] p 5 , 1 p 5 , 2 p 5 , 3 p 5 , 4 p 5 , 5 p 4 , 6 · · · [ 0 , 0 , 1 ] p 6 , 1 p 6 , 2 p 6 , 3 p 6 , 4 p 6 , 5 p 6 , 6 · · · . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programs become matrices. . . what is the meaning of the scalars? Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 20 / 38

  26. Quantitative Semantics The program interpretation Program ⊢ P : Nat → Nat . � P � 0 1 2 3 4 5 · · · [] p 1 , 1 p 1 , 2 p 1 , 3 p 1 , 4 p 1 , 5 p 1 , 6 · · · [ 0 ] p 2 , 1 p 2 , 2 p 2 , 3 p 2 , 4 p 2 , 5 p 2 , 6 · · · [ 0 , 1 ] p 3 , 1 p 3 , 2 p 3 , 3 p 3 , 4 p 3 , 5 p 2 , 6 · · · [ 0 , 0 ] p 4 , 1 p 4 , 2 p 4 , 3 p 4 , 4 p 4 , 5 p 3 , 6 · · · [ 1 , 1 ] p 5 , 1 p 5 , 2 p 5 , 3 p 5 , 4 p 5 , 5 p 4 , 6 · · · [ 0 , 0 , 1 ] p 6 , 1 p 6 , 2 p 6 , 3 p 6 , 4 p 6 , 5 p 6 , 6 · · · . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programs become matrices. . . what is the meaning of the scalars? Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 20 / 38

  27. Quantitative Semantics Capturing the operational semantics Consider PCF or , with weighted reductions: M Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 21 / 38

  28. Quantitative Semantics Capturing the operational semantics Consider PCF or , with weighted reductions: p 1 M 1 M p 2 M 2 Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 21 / 38

  29. Quantitative Semantics Capturing the operational semantics Consider PCF or , with weighted reductions: M 1 , 1 p 1 , 1 p 1 M 1 , 2 M 1 p 1 , 2 M p 2 , 1 p 2 M 2 , 1 M 2 p 2 , 2 M 2 , 2 Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 21 / 38

  30. Quantitative Semantics Capturing the operational semantics Consider PCF or , with weighted reductions: n M 1 , 1 k p 1 , 1 k ′ p 1 M 1 , 2 n M 1 p 1 , 2 m M p 2 , 1 p 2 n M 2 M 2 , 1 n p 2 , 2 m M 2 , 2 Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 21 / 38

  31. Quantitative Semantics Capturing the operational semantics Consider PCF or , with weighted reductions: n M 1 , 1 k p 1 , 1 k ′ p 1 M 1 , 2 n M 1 p 1 , 2 m M p 2 , 1 p 2 n M 2 M 2 , 1 n p 2 , 2 m M 2 , 2 Parametric Adequacy [Laird, Manzonetto, McCusker, Pagani LICS’13] Given M : Nat we have: � M � ( n ) = Sum of the product of the scalars along the paths M ։ n Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 21 / 38

  32. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . x | λ x . M | MN | Y M | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  33. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . x | λ x . M | MN | Y M | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  34. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . x | λ x . M | MN | Y M | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  35. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . x | λ x . M | MN | Y M | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | 1 2 M or 1 2 N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n ( R + , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) probability that M reduces to n [Danos-Ehrhard’11] Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  36. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . x | λ x . 1 M | MN | Y ( 1 M ) | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n ( R + , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) probability that M reduces to n [Danos-Ehrhard’11] ( N , + , 0 , min , ≥ ) minimum number of β, Y steps to n Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  37. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . x | λ x . 1 M | MN | Y ( 1 M ) | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n ( R + , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) probability that M reduces to n [Danos-Ehrhard’11] ( N , + , 0 , min , ≥ ) minimum number of β, Y steps to n ( N ⊥ , + , 0 , max , ≤ ) maximum number of β, Y steps to n Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  38. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . x | λ x . 1 M | MN | Y ( 1 M ) | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n ( R + , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) probability that M reduces to n [Danos-Ehrhard’11] ( N , + , 0 , min , ≥ ) minimum number of β, Y steps to n ( N ⊥ , + , 0 , max , ≤ ) maximum number of β, Y steps to n And more. . . See [Laird-Manzonetto-McCusker-Pagani LICS’2013] Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  39. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . Are there other quantitative properties that can be captured by suitable semirings? x | λ x . 1 M | MN | Y ( 1 M ) | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n ( R + , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) probability that M reduces to n [Danos-Ehrhard’11] ( N , + , 0 , min , ≥ ) minimum number of β, Y steps to n ( N ⊥ , + , 0 , max , ≤ ) maximum number of β, Y steps to n And more. . . See [Laird-Manzonetto-McCusker-Pagani LICS’2013] Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  40. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . Are there other quantitative properties that can be captured by suitable semirings? x | λ x . 1 M | MN | Y ( 1 M ) | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n Is it possible to get rid of commutativity? ( R + , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) probability that M reduces to n [Danos-Ehrhard’11] ( N , + , 0 , min , ≥ ) minimum number of β, Y steps to n ( N ⊥ , + , 0 , max , ≤ ) maximum number of β, Y steps to n And more. . . See [Laird-Manzonetto-McCusker-Pagani LICS’2013] Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  41. Quantitative Semantics Parametrized Quantitative Results for PCF or What are we actually counting? This depends on the chosen semi-ring. . . Are there other quantitative properties that can be captured by suitable semirings? x | λ x . 1 M | MN | Y ( 1 M ) | zero | succ M | pred M | ifz ( M , N , P ) | M or N � M � R Π R ! = Red ( M , n ) n ( N , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) number of paths from M to n Is it possible to get rid of commutativity? ( R + , · , 1 , � , ≤ ) probability that M reduces to n [Danos-Ehrhard’11] ( N , + , 0 , min , ≥ ) minimum number of β, Y steps to n ( N ⊥ , + , 0 , max , ≤ ) maximum number of β, Y steps to n What about the profunctorial semantics? And more. . . See [Laird-Manzonetto-McCusker-Pagani LICS’2013] Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 22 / 38

  42. Factor Algebras at Work 3. Universal Algebra and Symbolic Computation Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 23 / 38

  43. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — The Usual Algebraic Approach Propositional variables �→ algebraic variables Connectives �→ Boolean operations Propositional formula �→ Boolean algebraic term Tautology φ �→ equation of Boolean algebra φ = t Peirce Law: (( P → Q ) → P ) → P P Q P → Q ( P → Q ) → P (( P → Q ) → P ) → P t t t t t t f f t t f t t f t f f t f t Logical gates P P P ∧ Q P ∨ Q P ¬ P AND OR NOT Q Q Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 24 / 38

  44. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — The Usual Algebraic Approach Propositional variables �→ algebraic variables Connectives �→ Boolean operations Propositional formula �→ Boolean algebraic term Tautology φ �→ equation of Boolean algebra φ = t Peirce Law: (( P → Q ) → P ) → P P Q P → Q ( P → Q ) → P (( P → Q ) → P ) → P t t t t t t f f t t f t t f t f f t f t Logical gates P P P ∧ Q P ∨ Q P ¬ P AND OR NOT Q Q Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 24 / 38

  45. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — The Usual Algebraic Approach Propositional variables �→ algebraic variables Connectives �→ Boolean operations Propositional formula �→ Boolean algebraic term Tautology φ �→ equation of Boolean algebra φ = t Peirce Law: (( P → Q ) → P ) → P P Q P → Q ( P → Q ) → P (( P → Q ) → P ) → P t t t t t t f f t t f t t f t f f t f t tautology Logical gates P P P ∧ Q P ∨ Q P ¬ P AND OR NOT Q Q Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 24 / 38

  46. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — The Usual Algebraic Approach Propositional variables �→ algebraic variables Connectives �→ Boolean operations Propositional formula �→ Boolean algebraic term Tautology φ �→ equation of Boolean algebra φ = t Peirce Law: (( P → Q ) → P ) → P P Q P → Q ( P → Q ) → P (( P → Q ) → P ) → P t t t t t t f f t t f t t f t f f t f t tautology Logical gates P P P ∧ Q P ∨ Q P ¬ P AND OR NOT Q Q Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 24 / 38

  47. Factor Algebras at Work Multi-Valued Matrix Logics: The Usual Approach Propositional variables �→ algebraic variables Connectives �→ operations of some algebra �→ Propositional formula algebraic term Tautology φ �→ equation φ = t n -valued Logics Algebras Łukasiewicz Logic Heyting algebras Gödel Logic MV-algebras Post Logic Post algebras . . etc. . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 25 / 38

  48. Factor Algebras at Work In Practice: Binary Decision Diagrams P 1 P 2 P 3 P 1 f f f f f f t t f t f f P 2 P 2 f t t t t f f f P 3 P 3 P 3 P 3 t f t t t t f t f t f t f t t t t t t t ROBDDs Reduced: maximal sharing, Ordered: to ensure canonicity. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 26 / 38

  49. Factor Algebras at Work In Practice: Binary Decision Diagrams P 1 P 2 P 3 P 3 f f f f f f t t f t f f P 2 f t t t t f f f P 1 t f t t t t f t t f t t t t ROBDDs Reduced: maximal sharing, Ordered: to ensure canonicity. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 26 / 38

  50. Factor Algebras at Work Approach based on Decomposition Operators A τ -algebra A is decomposed into (simpler) factors B , C when: A ∼ = B × C A decomposition operator f : A × A → A is a map satisfying: ( F 1 ) f ( x , x ) = x . ( F 2 ) f ( f ( x , y ) , f ( w , z )) = f ( x , z ) . ( F 3 ) f is an algebra homomorphism. Each f induces a pair of complementary factor congruences ϕ, ¯ ϕ : x ϕ y ⇐ ⇒ f ( x , y ) = x ; x ¯ ϕ y ⇐ ⇒ f ( x , y ) = y . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 27 / 38

  51. Factor Algebras at Work Approach based on Decomposition Operators A τ -algebra A is decomposed into (simpler) factors B , C when: A ∼ = B × C A decomposition operator f : A × A → A is a map satisfying: ( F 1 ) f ( x , x ) = x . ( F 2 ) f ( f ( x , y ) , f ( w , z )) = f ( x , z ) . ( F 3 ) f is an algebra homomorphism. Each f induces a pair of complementary factor congruences ϕ, ¯ ϕ : x ϕ y ⇐ ⇒ f ( x , y ) = x ; x ¯ ϕ y ⇐ ⇒ f ( x , y ) = y . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 27 / 38

  52. Factor Algebras at Work Approach based on Decomposition Operators A τ -algebra A is decomposed into (simpler) factors B ∼ = A /ϕ, C ∼ = A / ¯ ϕ when: A ∼ = A /ϕ × A / ¯ ϕ A decomposition operator f : A × A → A is a map satisfying: ( F 1 ) f ( x , x ) = x . ( F 2 ) f ( f ( x , y ) , f ( w , z )) = f ( x , z ) . ( F 3 ) f is an algebra homomorphism. Each f induces a pair of complementary factor congruences ϕ, ¯ ϕ : x ϕ y ⇐ ⇒ f ( x , y ) = x ; x ¯ ϕ y ⇐ ⇒ f ( x , y ) = y . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 27 / 38

  53. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — Our Approach Truth values t , f �→ algebraic variables ξ f , ξ t ; Propositional variables P �→ decomposition operators f P ( ξ f , ξ t ); �→ Connectives disappear: implemented via substitutions and Boolean operations on indices The Translation t ∗ = ξ t f ∗ = ξ f P ∗ = P ( ξ f , ξ t ) ( ¬ φ ) ∗ φ ∗ ( ξ ¬ f , ξ ¬ t ); = ( φ ∧ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f ∧ f , ξ f ∧ t ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t ∧ f , ξ t ∧ t )); = ( φ ∨ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f ∨ f , ξ f ∨ t ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t ∨ f , ξ t ∨ t )); = ( φ → ψ ) ∗ ( ¬ φ ∨ ψ ) ∗ . = Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 28 / 38

  54. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — Our Approach Truth values t , f �→ algebraic variables ξ f , ξ t ; Propositional variables P �→ decomposition operators f P ( ξ f , ξ t ); �→ Connectives disappear: implemented via substitutions and Boolean operations on indices The Translation t ∗ = ξ t f ∗ = ξ f P ∗ = P ( ξ f , ξ t ) ( ¬ φ ) ∗ φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ f ); = ( φ ∧ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ f ) , φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ t )); = ( φ ∨ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ t ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ t )); = ( φ → ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ f ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ t )) . = Peirce Law: ((( P → Q ) → P ) → P ) ∗ = P ( P ( Q ( P ( t , f ) , P ( t , t )) , Q ( P ( f , f ) , P ( f , f ))) , P ( Q ( P ( t , t ) , P ( t , t )) , Q ( P ( t , t ) , P ( t , t )))) Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 28 / 38

  55. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — Our Approach Truth values t , f �→ algebraic variables ξ f , ξ t ; Propositional variables P �→ decomposition operators f P ( ξ f , ξ t ); �→ Connectives disappear: implemented via substitutions and Boolean operations on indices The Translation t ∗ = ξ t f ∗ = ξ f P ∗ = P ( ξ f , ξ t ) ( ¬ φ ) ∗ φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ f ); = ( φ ∧ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ f ) , φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ t )); = ( φ ∨ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ t ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ t )); = ( φ → ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ f ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ t )) . = The Axioms (F1) P ( x , x ) = x ; (F2) P ( P ( x , y ) , P ( w , z )) = P ( x , z ) ; (F3) P ( Q ( x , y ) , Q ( w , z )) = Q ( P ( x , w ) , P ( y , z )) . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 28 / 38

  56. Factor Algebras at Work Classical Logic — Our Approach These are ROBDDs! Truth values t , f �→ algebraic variables ξ f , ξ t ; Propositional variables P �→ decomposition operators f P ( ξ f , ξ t ); �→ Connectives disappear: implemented via substitutions and Boolean operations on indices The Translation t ∗ = ξ t f ∗ = ξ f P ∗ = P ( ξ f , ξ t ) ( ¬ φ ) ∗ φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ f ); = ( φ ∧ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ f ) , φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ t )); = ( φ ∨ ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ f , ξ t ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ t )); = ( φ → ψ ) ∗ ψ ∗ ( φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ f ) , φ ∗ ( ξ t , ξ t )) . = The Axioms (F1) P ( x , x ) = x ; (F2) P ( P ( x , y ) , P ( w , z )) = P ( x , z ) ; (F3) P ( Q ( x , y ) , Q ( w , z )) = Q ( P ( x , w ) , P ( y , z )) . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 28 / 38

  57. Factor Algebras at Work Factor Algebras and Factor Varieties An evaluation of the propositional variable P becomes: P is true ⇐ ⇒ f P ( ξ f , ξ t ) = ξ t ; P is false ⇐ ⇒ f P ( ξ f , ξ t ) = ξ f . Factor Algebras Algebras having decomposition operators f P ( − , − ) which are projections. Factor Variety We study classical propositional logic through the variety of algebras generated by these factor algebras. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 29 / 38

  58. Factor Algebras at Work A Uniform Approach for MV-Matrix Logics Truth values V = { v 1 , . . . , v p } �→ algebraic variables ξ 1 , . . . , ξ p ; �→ n -ary decomposition operators f P ( ξ 1 , . . . , ξ p ); Propositional variables P �→ Connectives disappear: implemented via substitutions and logical operations on indices The translations generalizes without problems. . . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 30 / 38

  59. Factor Algebras at Work A Uniform Approach for MV-Matrix Logics Truth values V = { v 1 , . . . , v p } �→ algebraic variables ξ 1 , . . . , ξ p ; Propositional variables P �→ n -ary decomposition operators f P ( ξ 1 , . . . , ξ p ); �→ Connectives disappear: implemented via substitutions and logical operations on indices The translations generalizes without problems. . . Main Theorem (Propositional Case) [SalibraMF, LICS16] A propositional formula φ is a tautology in a MV-matrix logic L if and only if ξ.φ ∗ = ξ t in the variety generated by all factor algebras. = ∀ � V | Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 30 / 38

  60. Factor Circuits Decomposition Gate Factor Circuits New notion of logic circuit Only one kind of gate: P s i 1 o i p - p input ports i 1 , . . . , i p (one for each truth value); - a switch s , called the selector switch ; - an output port o . D -gates represent decomposition operators of an algebra A ∈ Factor Variety. When A is a factor algebra, the gate behaves as a multiplexer. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 31 / 38

  61. Factor Circuits Decomposition Gate Factor Circuits New notion of logic circuit Only one kind of gate: i 1 o P i p - p input ports i 1 , . . . , i p (one for each truth value); - a switch s , called the selector switch ; - an output port o . D -gates represent decomposition operators of an algebra A ∈ Factor Variety. When A is a factor algebra, the gate behaves as a multiplexer. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 31 / 38

  62. Factor Circuits Comparison factor circuit gate AND D-gate ξ f ξ f Q P P ∧ Q P P ξ t Q ξ t logic gate AND D-gate operation connective ∧ decomposition operator f P meaning static ( AND ) dynamic (depends on P ) arity of ∧ # V no. of inputs input values prop. variables P , Q algebraic variables ξ f , ξ t signals carried truth values elements of by the wires the algebra A P ∧ Q f P ( ξ f , ξ t ) output Classical simplification processes for logical circuits are based on Boolean identities, Karnaugh maps, Quine-McClusky methods, . . . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 32 / 38

  63. Factor Circuits Simplification by Term Rewriting F 1 x P i x ֌ x F r x F ℓ x P i P i 2 2 y P i y ֌ ֋ z P i P i z z x x P i F ℓ P j 3 P j y y ֌ P P i i z z x P i F r x P i y 3 P j y ֌ P j P i z z Theorem A propositional formula φ is a tautology if and only if nf ( φ ∗ ) = ξ t Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 33 / 38

  64. Factor Circuits Simplification by Term Rewriting F 1 x P i x ֌ x F r x F ℓ x P i P i 2 2 y P i y ֌ ֋ z P i P i z z x x P i F ℓ P j 3 P j y y ֌ P i > j P i i z z x P i F r x P i y 3 P j y ֌ P j i > j P i z z Theorem A propositional formula φ is a tautology if and only if nf ( φ ∗ ) = ξ t Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 33 / 38

  65. Factor Circuits Simplification by Term Rewriting F 1 x P i x ֌ x F r x F ℓ x P i P i 2 2 y P i y ֌ ֋ z P i P i z z x x P i F ℓ P j 3 P j y y ֌ P i > j P i i z z x P i F r x P i y 3 P j y ֌ P j i > j P i z z Theorem A propositional formula φ is a tautology if and only if nf ( φ ∗ ) = ξ t Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 33 / 38

  66. Factor Circuits Generalization I: Quantified Matrix Logics p -valued Quantified Matrix Logics Φ ::= R ( t 1 , . . . , t m ) | o (Φ 1 , . . . , Φ n ) | ∀ x . Φ | ∃ x . Φ R ( a 1 , . . . , a m ) �→ f R ( a 1 , . . . , a m , ξ 1 , . . . , ξ p ) decomp. operator of arity m + p bijection Factor Algebras ← → Structures Theorem [SalibraMF, LICS16] = ∀ ξ 1 . . . ξ p . Φ ∗ = ξ t holds A universal sentence Φ is a logical truth ⇐ ⇒ V ˆ ν | For classical logic we can do more. . . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 34 / 38

  67. Factor Circuits Generalization I: Quantified Matrix Logics p -valued Quantified Matrix Logics Φ ::= R ( t 1 , . . . , t m ) | o (Φ 1 , . . . , Φ n ) | ∀ x . Φ | ∃ x . Φ R ( a 1 , . . . , a m ) �→ f R ( a 1 , . . . , a m , ξ 1 , . . . , ξ p ) decomp. operator of arity m + p bijection (proper) Factor Algebras ← → (proper) Structures Theorem [SalibraMF, LICS16] = ∀ ξ 1 . . . ξ p . Φ ∗ = ξ t holds A universal sentence Φ is a logical truth ⇐ ⇒ V ˆ ν | and the propositional translation of Φ is a tautology (in presence of equality). For classical logic we can do more. . . Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 34 / 38

  68. Factor Circuits Generalization II: First-order Logic First-order Classical Logic Ψ 1 , . . . , Ψ n | = Φ is reduced to an equational problem. Reduction procedure exploiting prenex normal form, Skolemization, etc. Theorem (Completeness) [SalibraMF, LICS16] Ψ 1 , . . . , Ψ n | = Φ if and only if Ax ( V Σ ) ⊢ eq ∀ x ∀ y ( x = y ) and the propositional translation of Ψ 1 ∧ · · · ∧ Ψ n → Φ is a tautology. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 35 / 38

  69. Factor Circuits Generalization II: First-order Logic First-order Classical Logic Ψ 1 , . . . , Ψ n | = Φ is reduced to an equational problem. Reduction procedure exploiting prenex normal form, Skolemization, etc. Is the method generalizable to infinite logics? Theorem (Completeness) [SalibraMF, LICS16] Ψ 1 , . . . , Ψ n | = Φ if and only if Ax ( V Σ ) ⊢ eq ∀ x ∀ y ( x = y ) and the propositional translation of Ψ 1 ∧ · · · ∧ Ψ n → Φ is a tautology. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 35 / 38

  70. Factor Circuits Generalization II: First-order Logic First-order Classical Logic Ψ 1 , . . . , Ψ n | = Φ is reduced to an equational problem. Reduction procedure exploiting prenex normal form, Skolemization, etc. Is the method generalizable to infinite logics? Theorem (Completeness) [SalibraMF, LICS16] Are these techniques useful to theorem provers? Ψ 1 , . . . , Ψ n | = Φ if and only if Ax ( V Σ ) ⊢ eq ∀ x ∀ y ( x = y ) and the propositional translation of Ψ 1 ∧ · · · ∧ Ψ n → Φ is a tautology. Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 35 / 38

  71. Conclusions The Big Picture Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 36 / 38

  72. Conclusions Algebraic Logic Quantitative Properties Nondeterminism PhD ( λ ) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Λ → ⇐ ⇒ Λ ∧ Differential λ -calculus Morris’s Theory SN ML F Giulio Manzonetto HdR Defense 07/03/17 37 / 38

Recommend

The Simply Typed Lambda Calculus Jonathan Prieto-Cubides Master in Applied Mathematics Logic and

The Simply Typed Lambda Calculus Jonathan Prieto-Cubides Master in Applied Mathematics Logic and

The Simply Typed Lambda Calculus Jonathan Prieto-Cubides Master in Applied Mathematics Logic and Computation Group Universidad EAFIT Medelln, Colombia 1th June 2017 (In Agda ) Contents Lambda Calculus Typed Lambda Calculus Syntax

1.05k views • 24 slides
Lecture 1 : Lambda Calculus CS6202 Introduction 1 Lambda Calculus Lambda Calculus

Lecture 1 : Lambda Calculus CS6202 Introduction 1 Lambda Calculus Lambda Calculus

CS6202: Advanced Topics in Programming Languages and Systems Lecture 1 : Lambda Calculus CS6202 Introduction 1 Lambda Calculus Lambda Calculus Untyped Lambda Calculus Evaluation Strategy Techniques - encoding, extensions,

791 views • 56 slides
1 Fifth Workshop on Lambda Calculus and Formal Grammar 2 Fifth Workshop on Lambda Calculus and

1 Fifth Workshop on Lambda Calculus and Formal Grammar 2 Fifth Workshop on Lambda Calculus and

1 Fifth Workshop on Lambda Calculus and Formal Grammar 2 Fifth Workshop on Lambda Calculus and Formal Grammar A Type-Theoretic View of Dynamic Logic Philippe de Groote LORIA & Inria-Lorraine 3 Fifth Workshop on Lambda Calculus and

1.12k views • 82 slides
Intuitionistic sequent-style calculus with explicit structural rules S. Ghilezan 1 c 1 . Lescanne

Intuitionistic sequent-style calculus with explicit structural rules S. Ghilezan 1 c 1 . Lescanne

Motivation - Logic vs Computation Sequent lambda calculus - Gtz Linear Sequent lambda calculus - Gtz Intuitionistic sequent-style calculus with explicit structural rules S. Ghilezan 1 c 1 . Lescanne 2 c 3 J. Iveti D. uni P 1.

598 views • 20 slides
Soft Linear Logic, Lambda-Calculus and Intersection Types Simona Ronchi Della Rocca, Marco

Soft Linear Logic, Lambda-Calculus and Intersection Types Simona Ronchi Della Rocca, Marco

Follia project: Logical foundations of abstract programming languages Soft Linear Logic, Lambda-Calculus and Intersection Types Simona Ronchi Della Rocca, Marco Gaboardi Dipartimento di Informatica - Universit degli Studi di Torino

293 views • 26 slides
Lambda Calculus Variables and Functions cs3723 1 Lambda Calculus Mathematical system for

Lambda Calculus Variables and Functions cs3723 1 Lambda Calculus Mathematical system for

Lambda Calculus Variables and Functions cs3723 1 Lambda Calculus Mathematical system for functions Computation with functions Captures essence of variable binding Function parameters and substitution Can be extended with

400 views • 17 slides
Unification of the Lambda-Calculus and Combinatory Logic Masahiko Sato Graduate School of

Unification of the Lambda-Calculus and Combinatory Logic Masahiko Sato Graduate School of

Unification of the Lambda-Calculus and Combinatory Logic Masahiko Sato Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University IFIP WG 2.2 Meeting TU Wien September 25, 2019 What are the Lambda-Calculus and Combinatory Logic? What are the

507 views • 36 slides
Part II: Lambda Calculus Lambda Calculus is a foundation for functional programs. Its an

Part II: Lambda Calculus Lambda Calculus is a foundation for functional programs. Its an

Part II: Lambda Calculus Lambda Calculus is a foundation for functional programs. Its an operational semantics, based on term rewriting. Lambda Calculus was developed by Alonzo Church in the 1930s and 40s as a theory of

820 views • 42 slides
Balanced polymorphism and linear lambda calculus Noam Zeilberger MSR-Inria Joint Centre TYPES

Balanced polymorphism and linear lambda calculus Noam Zeilberger MSR-Inria Joint Centre TYPES

Balanced polymorphism and linear lambda calculus Noam Zeilberger MSR-Inria Joint Centre TYPES 2015 Tallinn, 18 May 2015 1 / 30 a pearl theorem 2 / 30 Linear lambda calculus as an extremal case of parametricity: x . x ( y . y ) : ((

541 views • 30 slides
Lambda Calculus 1 / 43 Outline Introduction and history Definition of lambda calculus Syntax

Lambda Calculus 1 / 43 Outline Introduction and history Definition of lambda calculus Syntax

Lambda Calculus 1 / 43 Outline Introduction and history Definition of lambda calculus Syntax and operational semantics Minutia of -reduction Reduction strategies Programming with lambda calculus Church encodings Recursion De Bruijn

669 views • 43 slides
Lecture 1: Combinatory Logic and Lambda Calculus H. Geuvers Radboud University Nijmegen, NL

Lecture 1: Combinatory Logic and Lambda Calculus H. Geuvers Radboud University Nijmegen, NL

Combinatory Logic Radboud University Lambda Calculus Lecture 1: Combinatory Logic and Lambda Calculus H. Geuvers Radboud University Nijmegen, NL 21st Estonian Winter School in Computer Science Winter 2016 H. Geuvers - Radboud Univ. EWSCS

525 views • 37 slides
Enriching a Linear/non-linear Lambda Calculus: A Programming Language for String Diagrams Bert

Enriching a Linear/non-linear Lambda Calculus: A Programming Language for String Diagrams Bert

Enriching a Linear/non-linear Lambda Calculus: A Programming Language for String Diagrams Bert Lindenhovius, Michael Mislove and Vladimir Zamdzhiev Department of Computer Science Tulane University LICS18 University of Oxford 9 July 2018 0

760 views • 29 slides
Lesson2 Lambda Calculus Basics 1/10/02 Chapter 5.1, 5.2 Outline Syntax of the lambda

Lesson2 Lambda Calculus Basics 1/10/02 Chapter 5.1, 5.2 Outline Syntax of the lambda

Lesson 2: Lambda Calculus Lesson2 Lambda Calculus Basics 1/10/02 Chapter 5.1, 5.2 Outline Syntax of the lambda calculus abstraction over variables Operational semantics beta reduction substitution Programming in

518 views • 6 slides
Logic Programming Programming paradigm based on symbolic logic First order predicate calculus

Logic Programming Programming paradigm based on symbolic logic First order predicate calculus

Atkins Logic Programming Programming paradigm based on symbolic logic First order predicate calculus using constants, predicates, functions, variables, connectives, quantifiers, punctuation Start with axioms Prove theorems

196 views • 5 slides
On MALL proof nets Willem Heijltjes University of Bath LL2016, Lyon Intuitionistic logic

On MALL proof nets Willem Heijltjes University of Bath LL2016, Lyon Intuitionistic logic

On MALL proof nets Willem Heijltjes University of Bath LL2016, Lyon Intuitionistic logic natural deduction / lambda-calculus Linear logic proof nets ? Intuitionistic logic natural deduction / lambda-calculus Linear logic proof nets ? B ,

1.69k views • 112 slides
An Introduction to Functional Programming TyngRuey Chuang Institute of Information Science

An Introduction to Functional Programming TyngRuey Chuang Institute of Information Science

Lambda calculus An Introduction to Functional Programming TyngRuey Chuang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan 2007 Formosan Summer School on Logic, Language, and Computation July 213, 2007 1 / 15 Lambda calculus

473 views • 18 slides
Symbolic Computation Principles of Programming Languages Colorado School of Mines

Symbolic Computation Principles of Programming Languages Colorado School of Mines

Symbolic Computation Principles of Programming Languages Colorado School of Mines https://lambda.mines.edu CSCI-400 1 What questions did you have on the reading? Can your group members answer, or you can ask me. 2 Defjne symbolic computation in

570 views • 26 slides
CS522 - Programming Language Semantics Lambda Calculus and Combinatory Logic Grigore Rou

CS522 - Programming Language Semantics Lambda Calculus and Combinatory Logic Grigore Rou

1 CS522 - Programming Language Semantics Lambda Calculus and Combinatory Logic Grigore Rou Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2 In this part of the course we discuss two important and closely related

1.3k views • 68 slides
Lambda Calculus Alonzo Church What is a computation/algorithm? Hilberts 10th problem (1900):

Lambda Calculus Alonzo Church What is a computation/algorithm? Hilberts 10th problem (1900):

15-252: More Great Theoretical Ideas in Computer Science Lecture 3 January 30, 2020 Lambda Calculus Alonzo Church What is a computation/algorithm? Hilberts 10th problem (1900): Given a multivariate polynomial w/ integer coeffs, e.g. 4x 2 y

774 views • 48 slides
Logic and Computation Lecture 2 Zena M. Ariola University of Oregon 24th Estonian Winter School

Logic and Computation Lecture 2 Zena M. Ariola University of Oregon 24th Estonian Winter School

Logic and Computation Lecture 2 Zena M. Ariola University of Oregon 24th Estonian Winter School in Computer Science, EWSCS 19 Curry-Howard isomorphism A correspondence between minimal propositional logic and simply typed lambda-calculus

1.29k views • 89 slides
10Modal Logic IV; Lambda Calculus UIT2206: The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz March

10Modal Logic IV; Lambda Calculus UIT2206: The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz March

Modal Logic The Lambda Calculus 10Modal Logic IV; Lambda Calculus UIT2206: The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz March 27, 2013 Generated on Wednesday 27 th March, 2013, 09:57 UIT2206: The Importance of Being Formal 10Modal Logic

1.01k views • 82 slides
Advanced Logic Linear Temporal Logic Computation Tree Logic Daniel Gebler VU University

Advanced Logic Linear Temporal Logic Computation Tree Logic Daniel Gebler VU University

Advanced Logic Linear Temporal Logic Computation Tree Logic Daniel Gebler VU University Amsterdam March 11, 2013 Overview Linear temporal logic (LTL): describes properties of paths (individual executions) no modalities to

1.26k views • 107 slides
Introduction to the lambda calculus Polyvios.Pratikakis@imag.fr Based on slides by Jeff Foster,

Introduction to the lambda calculus Polyvios.Pratikakis@imag.fr Based on slides by Jeff Foster,

Introductory Course on Logic and Automata Theory Introduction to the lambda calculus Polyvios.Pratikakis@imag.fr Based on slides by Jeff Foster, UMD Introduction to lambda calculus p. 1/33 History Formal mathematical system Simplest

883 views • 33 slides
CS156: The Calculus of It is reasonable to hope that the relationship between Computation

CS156: The Calculus of It is reasonable to hope that the relationship between Computation

Calculus of Computation? CS156: The Calculus of It is reasonable to hope that the relationship between Computation computation and mathematical logic will be as fruitful in the next century as that between analysis and physics Zohar Manna in

474 views • 13 slides

More recommend