Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 403–429 | Cite as

A proof-theoretic foundation of abortive continuations



We give an analysis of various classical axioms and characterize a notion of minimal classical logic that enforces Peirce’s law without enforcing Ex Falso Quodlibet. We show that a “natural” implementation of this logic is Parigot’s classical natural deduction. We then move on to the computational side and emphasize that Parigot’s λμ corresponds to minimal classical logic. A continuation constant must be added to λμ to get full classical logic. The extended calculus is isomorphic to a syntactical restriction of Felleisen’s theory of control that offers a more expressive reduction semantics. This isomorphic calculus is in correspondence with a refined version of Prawitz’s natural deduction.


Callcc Minimal logic Intuitionistic logic Classical logic 


  1. 1.
    Ariola, Z.M., Herbelin, H.: Minimal classical logic and control operators. In: Thirtieth International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP’03, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, June 30–July 4, 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2719, pp. 871–885. Springer, New York (2003) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ariola, Z.M., Herbelin, H., Sabry, A.: A type-theoretic foundation of continuations and prompts. In: ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 40–53. ACM Press, New York (2004) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ariola, Z.M., Herbelin, H., Sabry, A.: A proof-theoretic foundation of abortive continuations (extended version). Technical Report TR608, Computer Science Department, Indiana University (2005) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avron, A.: Natural 3-valued logics—characterization and proof theory. J. Symb. Log. 56(1), 276–294 (1991) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barbanera, F., Berardi, S.: Extracting constructive content from classical logic via control-like reductions. In: Bezem, M., Groote, J.F. (eds.) Proceedings 1st Intl. Conf. on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, TLCA’93, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 16–18 March 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 664, pp. 45–59. Springer, Berlin (1993) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barendregt, H.P.: Lambda calculi with types. In: Maibaum, A.G. (ed.) Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2, pp. 117–309. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bierman, G.: A computational interpretation of the lambda-mu calculus. In: Brim, L., Gruska, J., Zlatuska, J. (eds.) Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1450, pp. 336–345. Springer, New York (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crolard, T.: A confluent lambda-calculus with a catch/throw mechanism. J. Funct. Program. 9(6), 625–647 (1999) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Groote, P.: On the relation between the lambda-mu calculus and the syntactic theory of sequential control. In: Pfennig, F. (ed.) Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, Proc. of the 5th International Conference, LPAR’94, pp. 31–43. Springer, Berlin (1994) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Groote, P.: An environment machine for the lambda-mu-calculus. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 8(6), 637–669 (1998) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Felleisen, M.: The theory and practice of first-class prompts. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’88), pp. 180–190. ACM Press, New York (1988) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Felleisen, M.: On the expressive power of programming languages. In: Jones, N. (ed.) ESOP’90 3rd European Symposium on Programming, Copenhagen, Denmark. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 432, pp. 134–151. Springer, New York (1990) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Felleisen, M., Hieb, R.: The revised report on the syntactic theories of sequential control and state. Theor. Comput. Sci. 103(2), 235–271 (1992) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gentzen, G.: Investigations into logical deduction. In: Szabo, M. (ed.) Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, pp. 68–131. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1969) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Girard, J.-Y.: A new constructive logic: classical logic. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 1(3), 255–296 (1991) MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goubault-Larrecq, J., Mackie, I.: Proof Theory and Automated Deduction. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2001) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffin, T.G.: The formulae-as-types notion of control. In: Conf. Record 17th Annual ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL’90, San Francisco, CA, USA, 17–19 Jan. 1990, pp. 47–57. ACM Press, New York (1990) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hofmann, M.: Sound and complete axiomatisations of call-by-balue control operators. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 5(4), 461–482 (1995) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansson, I.: Der Minimalkalkül, ein reduzierter intuitionistischer Formalismus. Compos. Math. 4, 119–136 (1937) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kameyama, Y., Hasegawa, M.: A sound and complete axiomatization of delimited continuations. In: Proc. of 8th ACM SIGPLAN Int. Conf. on Functional Programming, ICFP’03, Uppsala, Sweden, 25–29 Aug. 2003. SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 38(9), pp. 177–188. ACM Press, New York (2003) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lalement, R.: Computation as Logic. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, Amsterdam (1993) MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ong, C.-H.L., Stewart, C.A.: A Curry-Howard foundation for functional computation with control. In: Conf. Record 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL’97, Paris, France, 15–17 Jan. 1997, pp. 215–227. ACM Press, New York (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parigot, M.: Lambda-mu-calculus: an algorithmic interpretation of classical natural deduction. In: Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning: International Conference LPAR’92 Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 190–201. Springer, New York (1992) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parigot, M.: Classical proofs as programs. Comput. Log. Theory 713, 263–276 (1993) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parigot, M.: Strong normalization for second order classical natural deduction. In: Proceedings 8th Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, LICS’93, pp. 39–47. IEEE Computer Society Press (1993) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parigot, M.: Proofs of strong normalisation for second order classical natural deduction. J. Symb. Log. 62(4), 1461–1479 (1997) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prawitz, D.: Natural Deduction, a Proof-Theoretical Study. Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm (1965) MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Py, W.: Confluence en λ μ-calcul. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Savoie (1998) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sabry, A., Felleisen, M.: Reasoning about programs in continuation-passing style. Lisp Symb. Comput. 6(3–4), 289–360 (1993) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Selinger, P.: Control categories and duality: on the categorical semantics of the lambda-mu calculus. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 11(2), 207–260 (2001) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Streicher, T., Reus, B.: Classical logic: continuation semantics and abstract machines. J. Funct. Program. 8(6), 543–572 (1998) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Dalen, D.: Logic and Structure. Springer, New York (1997) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.INRIA-FutursOrsayFrance
  3. 3.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations