Logical Relations for Dynamic Name Creation

  • Yu Zhang
  • David Nowak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2803)


Pitts and Stark’s nu-calculus is a typed lambda-calculus which forms a basis for the study of interaction between higher-order functions and dynamically created names. A similar approach has received renewed attention recently through Sumii and Pierce’s cryptographic lambda-calculus, which deals with security protocols. Logical relations are a powerful tool to prove properties of such a calculus, notably observational equivalence. While Pitts and Stark construct a logical relation for the nu-calculus, it rests heavily on operational aspects of the calculus and is hard to be extended. We propose an alternative Kripke logical relation for the nu-calculus, which is derived naturally from the categorical model of the nu-calculus and the general notion of Kripke logical relation. This is also related to the Kripke logical relation for the name creation monad by Goubault-Larrecq et al. (CSL’2002), which the authors claimed had similarities with Pitts and Stark’s logical relation. We show that their Kripke logical relation for names is strictly weaker than Pitts and Stark’s. We also show that our Kripke logical relation, which extends the definition of Goubault-Larrecq et al., is equivalent to Pitts and Stark’s up to first-order types; our definition rests on purely semantic constituents, and dispenses with the detours through operational semantics that Pitts and Stark use.


Kripke logical relation name creation nu-calculus categorical models of lambda calculi 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alimohamed, M.: A characterization of lambda definability in categorical models of implicit polymorphism. Theoretical Computer Science 146(1–2), 5–23 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, J.: Distributive laws. In: Seminar on Triples and Categorical Homology Theory. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 80, pp. 119–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goubault-Larrecq, J., Lasota, S., Nowak, D.: Logical relations for monadic types. In: Bradfield, J.C. (ed.) CSL 2002 and EACSL 2002. LNCS, vol. 2471, pp. 553–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lambek, J., Scott, P.J.: Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mitchell, J.C.: Foundations of Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell, J.C., Moggi, E.: Kripke-style models for typed lambda calculus. In: LICS 1987, pp. 303–314. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, J.C., Scedrov, A.: Notes on sconing and relators. In: Martini, S., Börger, E., Kleine Büning, H., Jäger, G., Richter, M.M. (eds.) CSL 1992. LNCS, vol. 702, pp. 352–378. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moggi, E.: Computational lambda-calculus and monads. In: LICS 1989, pp. 14–23. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moggi, E.: An abstract view of programming languages. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-90-113, LFCS, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moggi, E.: Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation 93, 55–92 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pitts, A., Stark, I.: Observable properties of higher order functions that dynamically create local names, or: What’s new? In: Borzyszkowski, A.M., Sokolowski, S. (eds.) MFCS 1993. LNCS, vol. 711, pp. 122–141. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stark, I.: Names and Higher-Order Functions. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stark, I.: Categorical models for local names. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 9(1), 77–107 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stark, I.: Names, equations, relations: Practical ways to reason about new. Fundamenta Informaticae 33(4), 369–396 (1998)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sumii, E., Pierce, B.: Logical relations for encryption. In: CSFW 2001, pp. 256–272. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, Y.: Logical relations for names. Master’s thesis, University of Paris 7 (2002),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Zhang
    • 1
  • David Nowak
    • 1
  1. 1.LSV, CNRS UMR 8643, ENS de CachanCachanFrance

Personalised recommendations