Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:25:30.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An algorithm for testing conversion in type theory

from Type Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Thierry Coquand
Affiliation:
INRIA and University of Göteborg/Chalmers
Gerard Huet
Affiliation:
Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA), Rocquencourt
G. Plotkin
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The goal of this note is to present a “modular” proof, for various type systems with η-conversion, of the completeness and correctness of an algorithm for testing the conversion of two terms. The proof of completeness is an application of the notion of logical relations (see Statman 1983, that uses also this notion for a proof of Church-Rosser for simply typed λ-calculus).

An application of our result will be the equivalence between two formulations of Type Theory, the one where conversions are judgement, like in the present version of Martin-Löf set theory, and the one where conversion is defined at the level of raw terms, like in the standard version of LF (for a “conversion-as-judgement” presentation of LF, see Harper 1988). Even if we don't include η-conversion, the equivalence between the “conversion-as-judgement” and “conversion defined on raw terms” formulation appears to be a non-trivial property.

In order to simplify the presentation we will limit ourselves to type theory with only Π, and one universe. This calculus contains LF. After some motivations, we present the algorithm, the proof of its completeness and, as a corollary, its correctness. As a corollary of our argument, we prove normalisation, Church-Rosser, and the equivalence between the two possible formulations of Type Theory.

Informal motivation

The algorithm

The idea is to compute the weak head-normal form of the two terms (in an untyped way), and, in order to take care of η-conversion, in the case where one weak-head normal form is an abstraction (λx:A)M and the other is N a variable or an application, to compare recursively apply(N,ξ) and M[ξ].

Type
Chapter
Information
Logical Frameworks , pp. 255 - 279
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×