ASMs and Operational Algorithmic Completeness of Lambda Calculus

We show that lambda calculus is a computation model which can step by step simulate any sequential deterministic algorithm for any computable function over integers or words or any datatype. More formally, given an algorithm above a family of computable functions (taken as primitive tools, i.e., kind of oracle functions for the algorithm), for every constant K big enough, each computation step of the algorithm can be simulated by exactly K successive reductions in a natural extension of lambda calculus with constants for functions in the above considered family. The proof is based on a fixed point technique in lambda calculus and on Gurevich sequential Thesis which allows to identify sequential deterministic algorithms with Abstract State Machines. This extends to algorithms for partial computable functions in such a way that finite computations ending with exceptions are associated to finite reductions leading to terms with a particular very simple feature.Comment: 37 page

Maximal Sharing in the Lambda Calculus with letrec

Increasing sharing in programs is desirable to compactify the code, and to avoid duplication of reduction work at run-time, thereby speeding up execution. We show how a maximal degree of sharing can be obtained for programs expressed as terms in the lambda calculus with letrec. We introduce a notion of `maximal compactness' for lambda-letrec-terms among all terms with the same infinite unfolding. Instead of defined purely syntactically, this notion is based on a graph semantics. lambda-letrec-terms are interpreted as first-order term graphs so that unfolding equivalence between terms is preserved and reflected through bisimilarity of the term graph interpretations. Compactness of the term graphs can then be compared via functional bisimulation. We describe practical and efficient methods for the following two problems: transforming a lambda-letrec-term into a maximally compact form; and deciding whether two lambda-letrec-terms are unfolding-equivalent. The transformation of a lambda-letrec-term $L$ into maximally compact form $L_0$ proceeds in three steps: (i) translate L into its term graph $G = [[ L ]]$; (ii) compute the maximally shared form of $G$ as its bisimulation collapse $G_0$; (iii) read back a lambda-letrec-term $L_0$ from the term graph $G_0$ with the property $[[ L_0 ]] = G_0$. This guarantees that $L_0$ and $L$ have the same unfolding, and that $L_0$ exhibits maximal sharing. The procedure for deciding whether two given lambda-letrec-terms $L_1$ and $L_2$ are unfolding-equivalent computes their term graph interpretations $[[ L_1 ]]$ and $[[ L_2 ]]$, and checks whether these term graphs are bisimilar. For illustration, we also provide a readily usable implementation.Comment: 18 pages, plus 19 pages appendi

A Swiss Pocket Knife for Computability

This research is about operational- and complexity-oriented aspects of classical foundations of computability theory. The approach is to re-examine some classical theorems and constructions, but with new criteria for success that are natural from a programming language perspective. Three cornerstones of computability theory are the S-m-ntheorem; Turing's "universal machine"; and Kleene's second recursion theorem. In today's programming language parlance these are respectively partial evaluation, self-interpretation, and reflection. In retrospect it is fascinating that Kleene's 1938 proof is constructive; and in essence builds a self-reproducing program. Computability theory originated in the 1930s, long before the invention of computers and programs. Its emphasis was on delimiting the boundaries of computability. Some milestones include 1936 (Turing), 1938 (Kleene), 1967 (isomorphism of programming languages), 1985 (partial evaluation), 1989 (theory implementation), 1993 (efficient self-interpretation) and 2006 (term register machines). The "Swiss pocket knife" of the title is a programming language that allows efficient computer implementation of all three computability cornerstones, emphasising the third: Kleene's second recursion theorem. We describe experiments with a tree-based computational model aiming for both fast program generation and fast execution of the generated programs.Comment: In Proceedings Festschrift for Dave Schmidt, arXiv:1309.455

Comparing and evaluating extended Lambek calculi

Lambeks Syntactic Calculus, commonly referred to as the Lambek calculus, was innovative in many ways, notably as a precursor of linear logic. But it also showed that we could treat our grammatical framework as a logic (as opposed to a logical theory). However, though it was successful in giving at least a basic treatment of many linguistic phenomena, it was also clear that a slightly more expressive logical calculus was needed for many other cases. Therefore, many extensions and variants of the Lambek calculus have been proposed, since the eighties and up until the present day. As a result, there is now a large class of calculi, each with its own empirical successes and theoretical results, but also each with its own logical primitives. This raises the question: how do we compare and evaluate these different logical formalisms? To answer this question, I present two unifying frameworks for these extended Lambek calculi. Both are proof net calculi with graph contraction criteria. The first calculus is a very general system: you specify the structure of your sequents and it gives you the connectives and contractions which correspond to it. The calculus can be extended with structural rules, which translate directly into graph rewrite rules. The second calculus is first-order (multiplicative intuitionistic) linear logic, which turns out to have several other, independently proposed extensions of the Lambek calculus as fragments. I will illustrate the use of each calculus in building bridges between analyses proposed in different frameworks, in highlighting differences and in helping to identify problems.Comment: Empirical advances in categorial grammars, Aug 2015, Barcelona, Spain. 201

(Leftmost-Outermost) Beta Reduction is Invariant, Indeed

Slot and van Emde Boas' weak invariance thesis states that reasonable machines can simulate each other within a polynomially overhead in time. Is lambda-calculus a reasonable machine? Is there a way to measure the computational complexity of a lambda-term? This paper presents the first complete positive answer to this long-standing problem. Moreover, our answer is completely machine-independent and based over a standard notion in the theory of lambda-calculus: the length of a leftmost-outermost derivation to normal form is an invariant cost model. Such a theorem cannot be proved by directly relating lambda-calculus with Turing machines or random access machines, because of the size explosion problem: there are terms that in a linear number of steps produce an exponentially long output. The first step towards the solution is to shift to a notion of evaluation for which the length and the size of the output are linearly related. This is done by adopting the linear substitution calculus (LSC), a calculus of explicit substitutions modeled after linear logic proof nets and admitting a decomposition of leftmost-outermost derivations with the desired property. Thus, the LSC is invariant with respect to, say, random access machines. The second step is to show that LSC is invariant with respect to the lambda-calculus. The size explosion problem seems to imply that this is not possible: having the same notions of normal form, evaluation in the LSC is exponentially longer than in the lambda-calculus. We solve such an impasse by introducing a new form of shared normal form and shared reduction, deemed useful. Useful evaluation avoids those steps that only unshare the output without contributing to beta-redexes, i.e. the steps that cause the blow-up in size. The main technical contribution of the paper is indeed the definition of useful reductions and the thorough analysis of their properties.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1405.331

Applying Formal Methods to Networking: Theory, Techniques and Applications

Despite its great importance, modern network infrastructure is remarkable for the lack of rigor in its engineering. The Internet which began as a research experiment was never designed to handle the users and applications it hosts today. The lack of formalization of the Internet architecture meant limited abstractions and modularity, especially for the control and management planes, thus requiring for every new need a new protocol built from scratch. This led to an unwieldy ossified Internet architecture resistant to any attempts at formal verification, and an Internet culture where expediency and pragmatism are favored over formal correctness. Fortunately, recent work in the space of clean slate Internet design---especially, the software defined networking (SDN) paradigm---offers the Internet community another chance to develop the right kind of architecture and abstractions. This has also led to a great resurgence in interest of applying formal methods to specification, verification, and synthesis of networking protocols and applications. In this paper, we present a self-contained tutorial of the formidable amount of work that has been done in formal methods, and present a survey of its applications to networking.Comment: 30 pages, submitted to IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorial

Programs as Data Structures in λSF-Calculus

© 2016 The Author(s) Lambda-SF-calculus can represent programs as closed normal forms. In turn, all closed normal forms are data structures, in the sense that their internal structure is accessible through queries defined in the calculus, even to the point of constructing the Goedel number of a program. Thus, program analysis and optimisation can be performed entirely within the calculus, without requiring any meta-level process of quotation to produce a data structure. Lambda-SF-calculus is a confluent, applicative rewriting system derived from lambda-calculus, and the combinatory SF-calculus. Its superior expressive power relative to lambda-calculus is demonstrated by the ability to decide if two programs are syntactically equal, or to determine if a program uses its input. Indeed, there is no homomorphism of applicative rewriting systems from lambda-SF-calculus to lambda-calculus. Program analysis and optimisation can be illustrated by considering the conversion of a programs to combinators. Traditionally, a program p is interpreted using fixpoint constructions that do not have normal forms, but combinatory techniques can be used to block reduction until the program arguments are given. That is, p is interpreted by a closed normal form M. Then factorisation (by F) adapts the traditional account of lambda-abstraction in combinatory logic to convert M to a combinator N that is equivalent to M in the following two senses. First, N is extensionally equivalent to M where extensional equivalence is defined in terms of eta-reduction. Second, the conversion is an intensional equivalence in that it does not lose any information, and so can be reversed by another definable conversion. Further, the standard optimisations of the conversion process are all definable within lambda-SF-calculus, even those involving free variable analysis. Proofs of all theorems in the paper have been verified using the Coq theorem prover