Studia Logica

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 199–230

# A note on the proof theory the λII-calculus

• David J. Pym
Article

## Abstract

The λII-calculus, a theory of first-order dependent function types in Curry-Howard-de Bruijn correspondence with a fragment of minimal first-order logic, is defined as a system of (linearized) natural deduction. In this paper, we present a Gentzen-style sequent calculus for the λII-calculus and prove the cut-elimination theorem.

The cut-elimination result builds upon the existence of normal forms for the natural deduction system and can be considered to be analogous to a proof provided by Prawitz for first-order logic. The type-theoretic setting considered here elegantly illustrates the distinction between the processes of normalization in a natural deduction system and cut-elimination in a Gentzen-style sequent calculus.

We consider an application of the cut-free calculus, via the subformula property, to proof-search in the λII-calculus. For this application, the normalization result for the natural deduction calculus alone is inadequate, a (cut-free) calculus with the subformula property being required.

## Keywords

Normal Form Mathematical Logic Normalization Result Computational Linguistic Function Type
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## References

1. Avron, A., 1990, ‘Gentzenizing Schroeder-Heister's Natural Extension of Natural Deduction’,Notre Dame J. of Formal Logic 31, 127–135.Google Scholar
2. Avron, A., F. Honsell, I.A. Mason and R. Pollack, 1992, ‘Using Typed Lambda Calculus to Implement Formal Systems on a Machine’,J. Automated Reasoning 9, 309–354.Google Scholar
3. Barendregt, H., 1991, ‘Introduction to generalized type systems’,J. Func. Prog. 1(2), 125–154.Google Scholar
4. Cartmell, J., 1986, ‘Generalized Algebraic Theories and Contextual Categories’,Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 32, 209–243.Google Scholar
5. Clocksin, W. F., C.S. Mellish, 1984,Programming in Prolog, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
6. Coquand, Th., 1991, ‘An Algorithm for testing conversion in type theory’, in: G. Huet and G. Plotkin (editors),Logical Frameworks. Cambridge University Press, 255–279.Google Scholar
7. Daalen, D. T. van, 1980,The Language Theory of AUTOMATH. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven.Google Scholar
8. Dowek, G., 1991,Démonstration Automatique dans le Calcul des Constructions. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Paris 7.Google Scholar
9. Elliott, C. M., 1990,Extensions and Applications of Higher-order Unification. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Available as Technical Report CMU-CS-90-134.Google Scholar
10. Felty, A., 1987, ‘Implementing Theorem Provers in Logic Programming’, University of Pennsylvania report MS-CIS-87-109.Google Scholar
11. Gentzen, G., 1934, ‘Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen’,Mathematische Zeitschrift 39, 176–210, 405–431.Google Scholar
12. Harper, R. 1988, ‘An Equational Formulation oflf’, LFCS, report ECS-LFCS-88-67, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
13. Harper, R., F. Honsell, G. Plotkin 1987, ‘A Framework for Defining Logics’,Proc. Second Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 194–204. IEEE.Google Scholar
14. Harper, R., F. Honsell, G. Plotkin, 1993, ‘A Framework for Defining Logics’,J. ACM Vol. 40, No. 1, January, 143–184.Google Scholar
15. Hindley, J. R. and J. P. Seldin, 1986,Introduction to Combinators and λ-Calculus. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
16. Howard, W. A., 1980, ‘The formulae-as-types notion of construction’, in:To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism (editors J.P. Seldin & J.R. Hindley), Academic Press.Google Scholar
17. Kleene, S. C., 1968,Mathematical Logic. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
18. Martin-Löf, P., 1985, ‘On the meanings of the logical constants and the justifications of the logical laws’, Technical Report 2, Scuola di Specializziazione in Logica Matematica, Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Siena.Google Scholar
19. Meyer, A., 1982, ‘What is a Model of the Lambda Calculus?Information and Control 52, 87–122.Google Scholar
20. Miller, D., G. Nadathur, A. Ščedrov and F. Pfenning, 1991, ‘Uniform Proofs as a Foundation for Logic Programming’,Ann. Pure and Appl. Logic 51, 125–157.Google Scholar
21. Pfenning, F., 1991, ‘Logic programming in the LF logical framework’, in: G. Huet and G. Plotkin (editors),Logical Frameworks, Cambridge University Press, 149–181.Google Scholar
22. Prawitz, D. 1965,Natural deduction: a proof-theoretical study. Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
23. Pym, D. J., 1990,Proofs, Search and Computation in General Logic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1990. Available as report CST-69-90, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh. (Also published as LFCS report ECS-LFCS-90-125.)Google Scholar
24. Pym, D. J., 1992, ‘A Unification Algorithm for the λII-calculus’,Int. J. of Foundations of Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, 333–378.Google Scholar
25. Pym, D. J. and L. A. Wallen, 1990, ‘Investigations into Proof-search in a system of first-order dependent function types’,Proc. 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Kaiserslautern, FRG, July 1990, M. Stickel (editor), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence449, 236–250, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
26. Pym, D. J. and L. A. Wallen, 1991, ‘Proof-search in the λII-calculus’, in: G. Huet and G. Plotkin (editors),Logical Frameworks, Cambridge University Press, 309–340.Google Scholar
27. Pym, D. J. and L. A. Wallen, 1992, ‘Logic Programming via Proof-valued Computations’, in:ALPUK92, Proc. of the 4th U.K. Conference on Logic Programming, K. Broda (editor), 253–262. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
28. Pym, D. J., 1993, ‘Errata and Remarks’, LFCS Report ECS-LFCS-93-265. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
29. Robinson, J., 1965, ‘A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle’,J. Assoc. Comp. Mach. 12, 23–41.Google Scholar
30. Salvesen, A., 1989, Manuscript, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
31. Schroeder-Heister, P., 1984, ‘A Natural Extension of Natural Deduction’,J. Symb. Log. 49, 1284–1299.Google Scholar
32. Sieg, W., 1991, ‘Herbrand analyses’,Arch. Math. Logic 30, 409–441.Google Scholar
33. Smullyan, R. M., 1968, ‘First-order logic’,Ergebnisse der Mathematik 43, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
34. Zucker, J., 1974, ‘The correspondence between cut-elimination and normalisation’,Ann. Math. Logic 7 1–112.Google Scholar