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

How to prove similarity a precongruence in non-deterministic call-by-need lambda calculi

Extending the method of Howe, we establish a large class of untyped higher-order calculi, in particular such with call-by-need evaluation, where similarity, also called applicative simulation, can be used as a proof tool for showing contextual preorder. The paper also demonstrates that Mann’s approach using an intermediate “approximation” calculus scales up well from a basic call-by-need non-deterministic lambdacalculus to more expressive lambda calculi. I.e., it is demonstrated, that after transferring the contextual preorder of a non-deterministic call-byneed lambda calculus to its corresponding approximation calculus, it is possible to apply Howe’s method to show that similarity is a precongruence. The transfer is not treated in this paper. The paper also proposes an optimization of the similarity-test by cutting off redundant computations. Our results also applies to deterministic or non-deterministic call-by-value lambda-calculi, and improves upon previous work insofar as it is proved that only closed values are required as arguments for similaritytesting instead of all closed expressions

Full Abstraction for the Resource Lambda Calculus with Tests, through Taylor Expansion

We study the semantics of a resource-sensitive extension of the lambda calculus in a canonical reflexive object of a category of sets and relations, a relational version of Scott's original model of the pure lambda calculus. This calculus is related to Boudol's resource calculus and is derived from Ehrhard and Regnier's differential extension of Linear Logic and of the lambda calculus. We extend it with new constructions, to be understood as implementing a very simple exception mechanism, and with a "must" parallel composition. These new operations allow to associate a context of this calculus with any point of the model and to prove full abstraction for the finite sub-calculus where ordinary lambda calculus application is not allowed. The result is then extended to the full calculus by means of a Taylor Expansion formula. As an intermediate result we prove that the exception mechanism is not essential in the finite sub-calculus

A Theory of Explicit Substitutions with Safe and Full Composition

Many different systems with explicit substitutions have been proposed to implement a large class of higher-order languages. Motivations and challenges that guided the development of such calculi in functional frameworks are surveyed in the first part of this paper. Then, very simple technology in named variable-style notation is used to establish a theory of explicit substitutions for the lambda-calculus which enjoys a whole set of useful properties such as full composition, simulation of one-step beta-reduction, preservation of beta-strong normalisation, strong normalisation of typed terms and confluence on metaterms. Normalisation of related calculi is also discussed.Comment: 29 pages Special Issue: Selected Papers of the Conference "International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming 2008" edited by Giuseppe Castagna and Igor Walukiewic

Towards Correctness of Program Transformations Through Unification and Critical Pair Computation

Correctness of program transformations in extended lambda calculi with a contextual semantics is usually based on reasoning about the operational semantics which is a rewrite semantics. A successful approach to proving correctness is the combination of a context lemma with the computation of overlaps between program transformations and the reduction rules, and then of so-called complete sets of diagrams. The method is similar to the computation of critical pairs for the completion of term rewriting systems. We explore cases where the computation of these overlaps can be done in a first order way by variants of critical pair computation that use unification algorithms. As a case study we apply the method to a lambda calculus with recursive let-expressions and describe an effective unification algorithm to determine all overlaps of a set of transformations with all reduction rules. The unification algorithm employs many-sorted terms, the equational theory of left-commutativity modelling multi-sets, context variables of different kinds and a mechanism for compactly representing binding chains in recursive let-expressions.Comment: In Proceedings UNIF 2010, arXiv:1012.455