Advertisement

Ramied Recurrence with Dependent Types

  • Norman Danner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2044)

Abstract

We present a version of Gödel’s system T in which the types are ramified in the style of Leivant and a system of dependent typing is introduced. The dependent typing allows the definition of recursively defined types, where the recursion is controlled by ramification; these recursively defined types in turn allow the definition of functions by repeated iteration. We then analyze a subsystem of the full system and show that it defines exactly the primitive recursive functions. This result supports the view that when data use is regulated (for example, by ramification), standard function constructions are intimately connected with standard type-theoretic constructions.

Keywords

Inference Rule Product Rule Object Type High Type Dependent Type 
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. 1.
    J. Avigad. Predicative functionals and an interpretation of \( \widehat{ID}_{ < \omega } \) . Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 92(1):1–34, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Avigad and S. Feferman. Gödel’s functional (“Dialectica”) interpretation. In S. Buss, editor, Handbook of Proof Theory, pages 337–405. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Barendregt. Lambda calculi with types. In S. Abramsky, D. M. Gabbay, and T. Maibaum, editors, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Vol. 2, pages 117–309. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Bellantoni. Predicative recursion and the polytime hierarchy. In Feasible Mathematics II (Ithaca, NY, 1992), pages 15–29. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Bellantoni and S. Cook. A new recursion-theoretic characterization of the polytime functions. Comput. Complexity, 2(2):97–110, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Bellantoni, K.-H. Niggl, and H. Schwichtenberg. Higher type recursion, ramification and polynomial time. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 104(1–3):17–30, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Covino, G. Pani, and S. Caporaso. Extending the implicit computational complexity approach to the sub-elementary time-space classes. In Algorithms and Complexity (Rome, 2000), pages 239–252. Springer, Berlin, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Danner and C. Pollett. Minimization and the class NPMV. In preparation.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Gödel. über eine bisher noch nicht benützte Erweiterung des niten Standpunktes. Dialectica, 12:280–287, 1958.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Hofmann. A mixed modal/linear lambda calculus with applications to Bellantoni-Cook safe recursion. In Computer Science Logic (Aarhus, 1997), pages 275–294. Springer, Berlin, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Hofmann. Safe recursion with higher types and BCK-algebra. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 104(1–3):113–166, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Leivant. Ramified recurrence and computational complexity I: Word recurrence and poly-time. In Feasible Mathematics II (Ithaca, NY, 1992), pages 320–343. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Leivant. Ramified recurrence and computational complexity III: Higher type recurrence and elementary complexity. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 96(1–3):209–229, 1999. Festschrift on the occasion of Professor Rohit Parikh’s 60th birthday.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Leivant and J.-Y. Marion. Ramified recurrence and computational complexity II: Substitution and poly-space. In Computer Science Logic (Kazimierz, 1994), pages 486–500. Springer, Berlin, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Nelson. Primitive recursive functionals with dependent types. In Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics (Pittsburgh, PA, 1991), pages 125–143. Springer, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. E. Rose. Subrecursion: functions and hierarchies. Number 9 in Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. L. Selman. Much ado about functions. In Eleventh IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 198–212. 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Danner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations