Five axioms of alpha-conversion

  • Andrew D. Gordon
  • Tom Melham
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1125)


We present five axioms of name-carrying lambda-terms identified up to alpha-conversion—that is, up to renaming of bound variables. We assume constructors for constants, variables, application and lambda-abstraction. Other constants represent a function Fv that returns the set of free variables in a term and a function that substitutes a term for a variable free in another term. Our axioms are (1) equations relating Fv and each constructor, (2) equations relating substitution and each constructor, (3) alpha-conversion itself, (4) unique existence of functions on lambda-terms defined by structural iteration, and (5) construction of lambda-abstractions given certain functions from variables to terms. By building a model from de Bruijn’s nameless lambda-terms, we show that our five axioms are a conservative extension of HOL. Theorems provable from the axioms include distinctness, injectivity and an exhaustion principle for the constructors, principles of structural induction and primitive recursion on lambda-terms, Hindley and Seldin’s substitution lemmas and the existence of their length function. These theorems and the model have been mechanically checked in the Cambridge HOL system.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barendregt, H. P. (1984). The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics (Revised ed.), Volume 103 of Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Boulton, R., A. Gordon, M. Gordon, J. Harrison, J. Herbert, and J. Van Tassel (1992). Experience with embedding hardware description languages in HOL. In V. Stavridou, T. F. Melham, and R. T. Boute (Eds.), Theorem Provers in Circuit Design: Theory, Practice and Experience: Proceedings of the IFIP TC10/WG 10.2 International Conference, Nijmegen, June 1992, IFIP Transactions A-10, pp. 129–156. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Church, A. (1941). The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Curry, H. B. and R. Feys (1958). Combinatory Logic, Volume 1. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  5. de Bruijn, N. G. (1972). Lambda calculus notation with nameless dummies, a tool for automatic formula manipulation, with application to the Church-Rosser theorem. Indagationes Mathematicae 34, 381–392.Google Scholar
  6. Despeyroux, J. and A. Hirschowitz (1994, July). Higher-order abstract syntax with induction in Coq. In F. Pfenning (Ed.), Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR'94), Kiev, Volume 882 of LNAI, pp. 159–173. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Gordon, A. D. (1994). A mechanisation of name-carrying syntax up to alpha-conversion. In J. J. Joyce and C.-J. H. Seger (Eds.), Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications. Proceedings, 1993, Number 780 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 414–426. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, M. J. C. and T. F. Melham (Eds.) (1993). Introduction to HOL: A theorem-proving environment for higher-order logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hindley, J. R. and J. P. Seldin (1986). Introduction to Combinators and the λ-calculus. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lambek, J. and P. J. Scott (1986). Introduction to higher order categorical logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Landin, P. J. (1964, January). The mechanical evaluation of expressions. Computer Journal 6, 308–320.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Matthews, S. (1995, September). Implementing FS 0 in Isabelle: adding structure at the metalevel. In L. C. Paulson (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Isabelle Users Workshop. Available as Technical Report 379, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory.Google Scholar
  13. McKinna, J. and R. Pollack (1993). Pure Type Systems formalized. In TLCA’ 93 International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, Utrecht, 16–18 March 1993, Volume 664 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 289–305. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Melham, T. F. (1994). A mechanized theory of the π-calculus in HOL. Nordic Journal of Computing 1, 50–76.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Milner, R., J. Parrow, and D. Walker (1992). A calculus of mobile processes, parts I and II. Information and Computation 100, 1–40 and 41–77.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordström, B., K. Petersson, and J. M. Smith (1990). Programming in Martin-Löf's Type Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Owens, C. (1995, September). Coding binding and substitution explicitly in Isabelle. In L. C. Paulson (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Isabelle Users Workshop. Available as Technical Report 379, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory.Google Scholar
  18. Paulson, L. C. (1994). Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover, Volume 828 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Pfenning, F. and C. Elliott (1988, June). Higher-order abstract syntax. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN’ 88 Symposium on Language Design and Implementation, pp. 199–208.Google Scholar
  20. Pollack, R. (1994). The Theory of LEGO. Ph. D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  21. Stoughton, A. (1988). Substitution revisited. Theoretical Computer Science 59, 317–325.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Talcott, C. L. (1993). A theory of binding structures and applications to rewriting. Theoretical Computer Science 112, 99–143.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew D. Gordon
    • 1
  • Tom Melham
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Cambridge Computer LaboratoryCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations