Advertisement

A mixed linear and non-linear logic: Proofs, terms and models

Extended abstract
  • P. N. Benton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 933)

Abstract

Intuitionistic linear logic regains the expressive power of intuitionistic logic through the ! (‘of course’) modality. Benton, Bierman, Hyland and de Paiva have given a term assignment system for ILL and an associated notion of categorical model in which the ! modality is modelled by a comonad satisfying certain extra conditions. Ordinary intuitionistic logic is then modelled in a cartesian closed category which arises as a full subcategory of the category of coalgebras for the comonad.

This paper attempts to explain the connection between ILL and IL more directly and symmetrically by giving a logic, term calculus and categorical model for a system in which the linear and non-linear worlds exist on an equal footing, with operations allowing one to pass in both directions. We start from the categorical model of ILL given by Benton, Bierman, Hyland and de Paiva and show that this is equivalent to having a symmetric monoidal adjunction between a symmetric monoidal closed category and a cartesian closed category. We then derive both a sequent calculus and a natural deduction presentation of the logic corresponding to the new notion of model.

Keywords

Full Subcategory Monoidal Category Linear Logic Natural Deduction Sequent Calculus 
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]
    E. Barendsen and S. Smetsers. Conventional and uniqueness typing in graph rewrite systems. Technical Report CSI-R9328, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, December 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. N. Benton. A mixed linear and non-linear logic: Proofs, terms and models (preliminary report). Technical Report 352, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, September 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. N. Benton. Strong normalisation for the linear term calculus. Journal of Functional Programming, 1995. To appear. Also available as Technical Report 305, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, July 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. N. Benton, G. M. Bierman, J. M. E. Hyland, and V. C. V. de Paiva. Linear lambda calculus and categorical models revisited. In E. Börger et al., editor, Selected Papers from Computer Science Logic '92, volume 702 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. N. Benton, G. M. Bierman, J. M. E. Hyland, and V. C. V. de Paiva. A term calculus for intuitionistic linear logic. In M. Bezem and J. F. Groote, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, volume 664 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. M. Bierman. On intuitionistic linear logic (revised version of PhD thesis). Technical Report 346, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, August 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1–102, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.-Y. Girard. On the unity of logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 59:201–217, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Jacobs. Conventional and linear types in a logic of coalgebras. Preprint, University of Utrecht, April 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P. Lincoln and J. C. Mitchell. Operational aspects of linear lambda calculus. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    E. Moggi. Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation, 93:55–92, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. D. Plotkin. Type theory and recursion (abstract). In Proceedings of 8th Conference on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. A. G. Seely. Linear logic, *-autonomous categories and cofree coalgebras. In Conference on Categories in Computer Science and Logic, volume 92 of AMS Contemporary Mathematics, June 1980.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Wadler. There's no substitute for linear logic (projector slides). In G. Winskel, editor, Proceedings of the CLICS Workshop (Part I), March 1992, Aarhus, Denmark, May 1992. Available as DAIMI PB-397-I Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    P. Wadler. A taste of linear logic. In A. M. Borzyszkowski and S. Sokolowski, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, number 711 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 185–210, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. N. Benton
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations