Equivalence of Reductions in Higher-Order Rewriting

Higher-order rewriting is a symbiosis of two classical rewriting paradigms: the Lambda calculus, which features higher-order variables and variable binding, and first-order term rewriting, which features algebraic pattern matching. It is a powerful tool to study the meta-theory of declarative programming languages, such as Prolog and Haskell, on the one hand, and theorem provers and proof assistants, such as Isabelle, on the other. In this dissertation the notion of equivalence of reductions (for finite reductions) in higher-order rewrite systems (HRSs) is studied. Equivalence of reductions has been formalized for first-order term rewrite systems in various different ways. Here, I transform three of those formalizations to the higher-order case: • Permutation equivalence. Permutation equivalence is the formalization of the intuition that two reductions are equivalent if the one can be obtained from the other by iteratively permuting steps. I prove the property that every finite reduction (possibly containing multisteps) has a permutation equivalent proper reduction, that is, a reduction in which each step contracts exactly one redex. • Standardization equivalence. Standardization equivalence formalizes the idea that two reductions are equivalent if they have the same “standard” reduction, that is, a reduction in which the redexes are contracted in some standard order. In this thesis, we use the outermost-innermost order as standard order. In order to use standardization for formalizing equivalence of reductions, it is required that each (permutation) equivalence class of reductions contains a unique standard one. For the notion of standard used here, this is proved by giving two procedures which produce an equivalent standard reduction when given an arbitrary reduction: selection standardization and inversion standardization, which correspond to the weak and strong standardization of Klop, respectively. • Projection equivalence. If R and S are reductions, then the projection of R over S represents the reduction which contains the steps of R except the one which were also part of S. Projection equivalence captures the idea that two reductions are equivalent if the one projected over the other yields an empty reduction. The main result of this dissertation is that for local, orthogonal HRSs the three notions of equivalence coincide. An auxiliary result of this dissertation is the proof that HRSs enjoy finite family developments, meaning that in infinite reductions, there is no bound on the number of steps which were involved in creating a given symbol. This property is used to define the standardization procedures and has possible applications for proving termination of other HRSs.

[1]  Jean-Jacques Lévy,et al.  An abstract standardisation theorem , 1992, [1992] Proceedings of the Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[2]  Christopher P. Wadsworth,et al.  The Relation Between Computational and Denotational Properties for Scott's Dinfty-Models of the Lambda-Calculus , 1976, SIAM J. Comput..

[3]  Harold T. Hodes,et al.  The | lambda-Calculus. , 1988 .

[4]  José Meseguer,et al.  Conditioned Rewriting Logic as a United Model of Concurrency , 1992, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Claude Kirchner,et al.  Higher-order unification via explicit substitutions , 1995, Proceedings of Tenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[6]  Paul-André Melliès,et al.  Axiomatic Rewriting Theory I: A Diagrammatic Standardization Theorem , 2005, Processes, Terms and Cycles.

[7]  Mizuhito Ogawa,et al.  Uniform Normalisation beyond Orthogonality , 2001, RTA.

[8]  Gérard Huet,et al.  Residual theory in λ-calculus: a formal development , 1994, Journal of Functional Programming.

[9]  Tobias Nipkow,et al.  Higher-order critical pairs , 1991, [1991] Proceedings Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[10]  Paolo Coppola,et al.  (Optimal) duplication is not elementary recursive , 2004, Inf. Comput..

[11]  John R. W. Glauert,et al.  Discrete Normalization and Standardization in Deterministic Residual Structures , 1996, ALP.

[12]  John Staples,et al.  Optimal Evaluations of Graph-Like Expressions , 1980, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Tobias Nipkow Orthogonal Higher-Order Rewrite Systems are Confluent , 1993, TLCA.

[15]  V. van Oostrom,et al.  Confluence for Abstract and Higher-Order Rewriting , 1994 .

[16]  William C. Frederick,et al.  A Combinatory Logic , 1995 .

[17]  Paul-André Melliès Axiomatic Rewriting Theory VI Residual Theory Revisited , 2002, RTA.

[18]  Albert Rubiozy Higher-order Recursive Path Orderings , 1999 .

[19]  van Dt Diederik Daalen The Language Theory of Automath: Chapter I, Sections 1–5 (Introduction) , 1994 .

[20]  Vincent van Oostrom Finite Family Developments , 1997, RTA.

[21]  Masahiko Sakai,et al.  An Extension of the Dependency Pair Method for Proving Termination of Higher-Order Rewrite Systems , 2001 .

[22]  B. Hilken,et al.  Towards a proof theory of rewriting: the simply typed 2l-calculus , 1996 .

[23]  Femke van Raamsdonk,et al.  On Termination of Higher-Order Rewriting , 2001, RTA.

[24]  Tobias Nipkow,et al.  Higher-Order Rewrite Systems and Their Confluence , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Cosimo Laneve,et al.  Axiomatizing permutation equivalence , 1996, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[26]  Dale Miller,et al.  A Logic Programming Language with Lambda-Abstraction, Function Variables, and Simple Unification , 1991, J. Log. Comput..

[27]  John R. W. Glauert,et al.  Relating conflict-free stable transition and event models via redex families , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[28]  Jean-Jacques Lévy,et al.  Computations in Orthogonal Rewriting Systems, II , 1991, Computational Logic - Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson.

[29]  Luc Maranget,et al.  Optimal derivations in weak lambda-calculi and in orthogonal term rewriting systems , 1991, POPL '91.

[30]  John Staples,et al.  Computation on Graph-Like Expressions , 1980, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[31]  Dieter Hofbauer,et al.  Match-Bounded String Rewriting Systems , 2003, MFCS.

[32]  R. C. de Vrijer,et al.  Equivalence of reduction , 2003 .

[33]  John Staples Speeding up Subtree Replacement Systems , 1980, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[34]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  Proving and Disproving Termination of Higher-Order Functions , 2005, FroCoS.

[35]  H. J. Sander Bruggink Residuals in Higher-Order Rewriting , 2003, RTA.

[36]  John Lamping,et al.  An algorithm for optimal lambda calculus reduction , 1989, POPL '90.

[37]  Vincent van Oostrom,et al.  Four equivalent equivalences of reductions , 2002, WRS.

[38]  Masahiko Sakai,et al.  On Dependency Pair Method for Proving Termination of Higher-Order Rewrite Systems , 2001, IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Jan Willem Klop,et al.  Combinatory reduction systems , 1980 .

[40]  Eugene W. Stark,et al.  Concurrent Transition Systems , 1989, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[41]  Vincent van Oostrom,et al.  Higher-Order Families , 1996, RTA.

[42]  Ron Dinishak The optimal implementation of functional programming languages , 2000, SOEN.

[43]  Hans Zantema,et al.  On tree automata that certify termination of left-linear term rewriting systems , 2005, Inf. Comput..

[44]  Cj Roel Bloo,et al.  Preservation of termination for explicit substitution , 1997 .

[45]  H. J. Sander Bruggink,et al.  A Proof of Finite Family Developments for Higher-Order Rewriting Using a Prefix Property , 2006, RTA.

[46]  David A. Wolfram,et al.  The Clausal Theory of Types , 1993 .

[47]  Jan Willem Klop,et al.  Descendants and Origins in Term Rewriting , 2000, Inf. Comput..

[48]  Vincent van Oostrom,et al.  Combinatory Reduction Systems: Introduction and Survey , 1993, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[49]  William W. Tait,et al.  Intensional interpretations of functionals of finite type I , 1967, Journal of Symbolic Logic.