Advertisement

Lax Logical Relations

  • Gordon Plotkin
  • John Power
  • Donald Sannella
  • Robert Tennent
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1853)

Abstract

Lax logical relations are a categorical generalisation of logical relations; though they preserve product types, they need not preserve exponential types. But, like logical relations, they are preserved by the meanings of all lambda-calculus terms.We show that lax logical relations coincide with the correspondences of Schoett, the algebraic relations of Mitchell and the pre-logical relations of Honsell and Sannella on Henkin models, but also generalise naturally to models in cartesian closed categories and to richer languages.

Keywords

Binary Relation Algebraic Structure Logical Relation Small Category Preserve Functor 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ab90]
    S. Abramsky. Abstract interpretation, logical relations and Kan extensions. J. of Logic and Computation, 1:5–40, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [Al95]
    M. Alimohamed. A characterization of lambda definability in categorical models of implicit polymorphism. Theoretical Computer Science, 146:5–23, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [BKP89]
    R. Blackwell, H. M. Kelly, and A. J. Power. Two dimensional monad theory. J. of Pure and Applied Algebra, 59:1–41, 1989.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [Bo94]
    Francis Borceux. Handbook of Categorical Algebra 2, volume 51 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications.Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [Cu93]
    P.-L. Curien. Categorical Combinators, Sequential Algorithms, and Functional Programming. Birkhauser, Boston, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [FRA99]
    J. Flum and M. Rodriguez-Artalejo, editors. Computer Science Logic, 13th International Workshop, CSL’99, volume 1683 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Madrid, Spain, September 1999. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1999).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [Gi68]
    A. Ginzburg. Algebraic Theory of Automata. Academic Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  8. [He93]
    Claudio A. Hermida. Fibrations, logical predicates, and indeterminates. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Edinburgh, 1993. Available as Computer Science Report CST-103-93 or ECS-LFCS-93-277.Google Scholar
  9. [HL+]_F. Honsell, J. Longley, D. Sannella, and A. Tarlecki. Constructive data refinement in typed lambda calculus. To appear in the Proceedings of FOSSACS 2000, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science.Google Scholar
  10. [HS99]
    F. Honsell and D. Sannella. Pre-logical relations. In M. Rodriguez-Artalejo, editors. Computer Science Logic, 13th International Workshop, CSL’99, volume 1683 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Madrid, Spain, September 1999. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1999). Flum and Rodriguez-Artalejo [FRA99], pages 546–561.Google Scholar
  11. [JH90]
    He Jifeng and C. A. R. Hoare. Data refinement in a categorical setting. Technical monograph PRG-90, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Programming Research Group, Oxford, November 1990.Google Scholar
  12. [JT93]
    A. Jung and J. Tiuryn. A new characterization of lambda definability. In M. Bezen and J. F. Groote, editors, Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, volume 664 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 245–257, Utrecht, The Netherlands, March 1993. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Y. Kinoshita, P. O’Hearn, A. J. Power, M. Takeyama, and R. D. Tennent. An axiomatic approach to binary logical relations with applications to data refinement. In M. Abadi and T. Ito, editors, Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software, volume 1281 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 191–212, Sendai, Japan, 1997. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [KP]
    Y. Kinoshita and A. J. Power. Data refinement by enrichment of algebraic structure. To appear in Acta Informatica.Google Scholar
  15. [KP93]
    G. M. Kelly and A. J. Power. Adjunctions whose counits are coequalizers, and presentations of finitary enriched monads. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 89:163–179, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [KP96]
    Y. Kinoshita and A. J. Power. Lax naturality through enrichment. J. Pure and Applied Algebra, 112:53–72, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [KP99]
    Y. Kinoshita and J. Power. Data refinement for call-by-value programming languages. In M. Rodriguez-Artalejo, editors. Computer Science Logic, 13th International Workshop, CSL’99, volume 1683 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Madrid, Spain, September 1999. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1999). Flum and Rodriguez-Artalejo [FRA99], pages 562–576.Google Scholar
  18. [La88]
    Y. Lafont. Logiques, Categories et Machines. Thése de Doctorat, Université de Paris VII, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. [Mi71]
    R. Milner. An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. In Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 481–489. The British Computer Society, London, 1971. Also Technical Report CS-205, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, February 1971.Google Scholar
  20. [Mi90]
    J. C. Mitchell. Type systems for programming languages. InJ. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, pages 365–458. Elsevier, Amsterdam, and The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [Mi91]
    J. C. Mitchell. On the equivalence of data representations. In V. Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 305–330. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [Mi96]
    J. C. Mitchell. Foundations for Programming Languages. The MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. [Mo91]
    Eugenio Moggi. Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation, 93(1):55–92, July 1991.Google Scholar
  24. [MR91]
    QingMing Ma and J. C. Reynolds. Types, abstraction, and parametric polymorphism, part 2. In S. Brookes, M. Main, A. Melton, M. Mislove, and D. Schmidt, editors, Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, volume 598 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–40, Pittsburgh, PA, March 1991. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1992).Google Scholar
  25. [MS76]
    R. E. Milne and C. Strachey. A Theory of Programming Language Semantics. Chapman and Hall London, and Wiley, New York, 1976.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. [MS92]
    J. C. Mitchell and A. Scedrov. Notes on sconing and relators. In E. Börger, G. Jager, H. Kleine Büning, S. Martini, and M. M. Richter, editors, Computer Science Logic: 6th Workshop, CSL’ 92: Selected Papers, volume 702 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 352–378, San Miniato, Italy, 1992. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993).Google Scholar
  27. [OR95]
    P. O’Hearn and J. Riecke. Kripke logical relations and PCF. Information and Computation, 120(1):107–116, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. [OT95]
    P. W. O’Hearn and R. D. Tennent. Parametricity and local variables. J. ACM, 42(3):658–709, May 1995.Google Scholar
  29. [Pl73]
    G. D. Plotkin. Lambda-definability and logical relations. Memorandum SAIRM-4, School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, October 1973.Google Scholar
  30. [Pl80]
    G. D. Plotkin. Lambda-definability in the full type hierarchy. In J. P. Seldin and J. R. Hindley, editors, To H. B. Curry: Essays in Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, pages 363–373. Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  31. [Po97]
    A. J. Power. Categories with algebraic structure. In M. Nielsen and W. Thomas, editors, Computer Science Logic, 11th International Workshop, CSL’99, volume 1414 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 389–405, Aarhus, Denmark, August 1997. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1998).Google Scholar
  32. [Re74]
    J. C. Reynolds. On the relation between direct and continuation semantics. InJ. Loeckx, editor, Proc. 2nd Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 14 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 141–156. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1974.Google Scholar
  33. [Re83]
    J. C. Reynolds. Types, abstraction and parametric polymorphism. In R. E. A. Mason, editor, Information Processing 83, pages 513–523, Paris, France, 1983. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  34. [Sc87]
    O. Schoett. Data abstraction and the correctness of modular programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, February1987. Report CST-42-87.Google Scholar
  35. [St96]
    I. Stark. Categorical models for local names. Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 9(1):77–107, February 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon Plotkin
    • 1
  • John Power
    • 1
  • Donald Sannella
    • 1
  • Robert Tennent
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for Foundations of Computer ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Department of Computing and Information ScienceQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations