Monotone Fixed-Point Types and Strong Normalization

  • Ralph Matthes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1584)


Several systems of fixed-point types (also called retract types or recursive types with explicit isomorphisms) extending system F are considered. The seemingly strongest systems have monotonicity witnesses and use them in the definition of beta reduction for those types. A more naïve approach leads to non-normalizing terms. All the other systems are strongly normalizing because they embed in a reduction-preserving way into the system of non-interleaved positive fixed-point types which can be shown to be strongly normalizing by an easy extension of some proof of strong normalization for system F.


Natural Deduction Elimination Rule Inductive Type Type Construct Introduction Rule 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Fiore, M.: Syntactic Considerations on Recursive Types. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 242–252. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altenkirch, T.: Strong Normalization for T+. Unpublished note (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barendregt, H.: Lambda Calculi with Types. In: Abramsky, S., Gabbay, D., Maibaum, T. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2, pp. 117–309. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geuvers, H.: Inductive and Coinductive Types with Iteration and Recursion. In: Nordström, B., Pettersson, K., Plotkin, G. (eds.) Preliminary Proceedings of the Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs, Båstad, pp. 193–217 (June 1992) ( Scholar
  5. 5.
    Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y., Taylor, P.: Proofs and Types. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gunter, C.A.: Semantics of Programming Languages: Structures and Techniques. Foundations of Computing Series. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leivant, D.: Contracting Proofs to Programs. In: Odifreddi, P. (ed.) Logic in Computer Science. APIC Studies in Data Processing, vol. 31, pp. 279–327. Academic Press, London (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loader, R.: Normalisation by Translation. Unpublished note announced on the “types” mailing list on April 6 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matthes, R.: Extensions of System F by Iteration and Primitive Recursion on Monotone Inductive Types. PhD thesis, University of Munich (1998), to appear, available via
  10. 10.
    Mendler, N.P.: Recursive Types and Type Constraints in Second-Order Lambda Calculus. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 30–36. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Raamsdonk, F., Severi, P.: On Normalisation. Technical Report CS-R9545, CWI (June 1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takahashi, M.: Parallel Reduction in λ-Calculus. Information and Computation 118, 120–127 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uustalu, T., Vene, V.: A Cube of Proof Systems for the Intuitionistic Predicate μ-, ν-Logic. In: Haveraaen, M., Owe, O. (eds.) Selected Papers of the 8th Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory (NWPT 1996), Oslo, Norway. Research Reports, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, vol. 248, pp. 237–246 (May 1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph Matthes
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations