A new type theory for representing logics

  • Philippa Gardner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 698)


We propose a new type theory for representing logics, called LF+ and based on the Edinburgh Logical Framework. The new framework allows us to give, apparently for the first time, general definitions which capture how well a logic has been represented. Using our definitions, we show that, for example, first-order logic can be wellrepresented in LF+, whereas linear and relevant logics cannot. These syntactic definitions of representation have a simple formulation as indexed isomorphisms, which both confirms that our approach is a natural one, and provides a link between type-theoretic and categorical approaches to frameworks.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Augustsson, T. Coquand and B. Nordström. A Short Description of Another Logical Framework, 1st Workshop on Logical Frameworks, ed.s Huet and Plotkin, pp 39–42, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Avron, F. Honsell, I.A. Mason and R. Pollack. Using Typed Lambda Calculus to Implement Formal Systems on a Machine, Automated Reasoning, Vol. 9, pp 309–354, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Avron. Simple Consequence Relations, Information and Computation, Vol. 1, pp 105–139, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Barendregt. Lambda Calculi with Types, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, OUP, Vol. 2, pp 117–309, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Bénabou. Fibred Categories and the Foundations of Naive Category Theory, Symbolic Logic, Vol. 50, pp 10–37, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N.G. de Bruijn. A Survey of the Project Automath, in [31], pp 589–606, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types, Symbolic Logic, Vol. 5, pp 56–68, 1940.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.L. Constable et al. Implementing Mathematics with the NuPrl Proof Development System, Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Coquand and G. Huet. The Calculus of Constructions, Information and Computation, Vol. 76, pp 95–120, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.B. Curry and R. Feys. Combinatory Logic, North Holland, 1958.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Dowek and G. Huet. On the Definition of the η-long normal form in Type Systems of the Cube, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.M. Dunn. Relevant Logic and Entailment, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, eds. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, Vol. 3, pp 117–224, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.A. Gardner. Representing Logics in Type Theory, Ph.D. Thesis, Edinburgh University, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P.A. Gardner. Equivalences between Logics and their Representing Type Theories, full paper, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.H. Geuvers. The Church-Rosser property for βη-reduction in typed lambda calculus, Logic in Computer Science, pp 453–460, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.Y. Girard. Linear Logic, Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 50, pp 1–102, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M.J.C. Gordon. HOL: A Proof Generating System for Higher-Order Logic. VSLI Specification, Verification and Syntiesis, ed.s Birtwistle and Subrahmanyam, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 73–128, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Harper, F. Honsell and G. Plotkin. A Framework for Defining Logics, Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 40, Part 1, pp 143–184, 1992. Preliminary version in Logic in Computer Science, pp 194–204, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Harper, D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki. Structure and Representation in LF. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-89-75, Edinburgh University, 1989. Abridged version in Logic in Computer Science, pp 226–237, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W.A. Howard. The Formulae-as-types Notion of Construction, in [31], pp 479–490, 1980.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F.W. Lawvere. Equality in Hyperdoctrines and Comprehension Schema as an Adjoint Functor, Applications of Categorical Algebra, American Mathematical Society, pp 1–14, 1970.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Z. Luo and R. Pollack. LEGO Proof Development System: User's Manual, Technical Report ECS-LFCS-92-211, Edinburgh University, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Martin-Löf. On the Meanings of the Logical Constants and the Justifications of the Logical Laws, Technical Report 2, Università di Siena, 1985.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Miller and G. Nadathur. Higher-order Logic Programming, LNCS 225: 3rd International Logic Programming Conference Springer, ed. Shapiro, pp 448–462, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Miller, G. Plotkin and D. Pym A Relevant Analysis of Natural Deduction, in preparation.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Paré and D. Schumacher. Abstract Families and the Adjoint Functor Theorems, Indexed Categories and their Applications, ed.s Johnstone and Paré, pp 1–125, 1978.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    L. Paulson. The Foundations of a Generic Theorem Prover, Automatic Reasoning, Vol. 5, pp 363–397, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Prawitz. Natural Deduction: A Proof-theoretical study. Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A Unification Algorithm for the λΠ-calculus, Foundations of Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp 333–378, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Salvesen. The Church-Rosser Property for Pure Type Systems with βη reduction, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J.P. Seldin and J.R. Hindley, editors. To H.B. Curry: Essays in Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Simpson. Kripke Semantics for a Logical Framework, 1992 Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs, Båstad, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippa Gardner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations