Orthogonal higher-order rewrite systems are confluent

  • Tobias Nipkow
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 664)


The results about higher-order critical pairs and the confluence of OHRSs provide a firm foundation for the further study of higher-order rewrite systems. It should now be interesting to lift more results and techniques both from term-rewriting and λ-calculus to the level of HRSs. For example termination proof techniques are much studied for TRSs and are urgently needed for HRSs; similarly the extension of our result to weakly orthogonal HRSs or even to Huet's “parallel closed” systems is highly desirable. Conversely, a large body of λ-calculus reduction theory has been lifted to CRSs [10] already and should be easy to carry over to HRSs.

Finally there is the need to extend the notion of an HRS to more general left-hand sides. For example the eta-rule for the case-construct on disjoint unions [15] case(U,λx.F(inl(x)),λy.G(inr(y))) F(U) is outside our framework, whichever way it is oriented.


Normal Form Induction Hypothesis Logic Program Free Variable Critical Pair 
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]
    P. Aczel. A general Church-Rosser theorem. Technical report, University of Manchester, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. P. Barendregt. The Lambda Calculus, its Syntax and Semantics. North Holland, 2nd edition, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    V. Breazu-Tannen. Combining algebra and higher-order types. In Proc. 3rd IEEE Symp. Logic in Computer Science, pages 82–90, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    N. Dershowitz and J.-P. Jouannaud. Rewrite systems. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Formal Models and Semantics, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. B, pages 243–320. Elsevier — The MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. J. Dougherty. Adding algebraic rewriting to the untyped lambda-calculus. In R. V. Book, editor, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Rewriting Techniques and Applications, pages 37–48. LNCS 488, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Felty. A logic-programming approach to implementing higher-order term rewriting. In L.-H. Eriksson, L. Hallnäs, and P. Schroeder-Heister, editors, Extensions of Logic Programming, Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop, pages 135–158. LNCS 596, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Gallier. Constructive Logics. Part I. Technical Report 8, DEC Paris Research Laboratory, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Hindley and J. P. Seldin. Introduction to Combinators and λ-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    G. Huet. Confluent reductions: Abstract properties and applications to term rewritingsystems. J. ACM, 27:797–821, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. W. Klop. Combinatory Reduction Systems. Mathematical Centre Tracts 127. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. W. Klop. Term rewriting systems. Technical Report CS-R9073, CWI, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Miller. A logic programming language with lambda-abstraction, function variables, and simple unification. In P. Schroeder-Heister, editor, Extensions of Logic Programming, pages 253–281. LNCS 475, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    F. Müller. Confluence of the lambdacalculus with left-linear algebraic rewriting. Information Processing Letters, 41:293–299, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. Nadathur and D. Miller. An overview of λProlog. In R. A. Kowalski and K. A. Bowen, editors, Proc. 5th Int. Logic Programming Conference, pages 810–827. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    T. Nipkow. Higher-order critical pairs. In Proc. 6th IEEE Symp. Logic in Computer Science, pages 342–349, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    T. Nipkow. Functional unification of higher-order patterns. Technical report, TU München, Institut für Informatik, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    L. C. Paulson. Isabelle: The next 700 theorem provers. In P. Odifreddi, editor, Logic and Computer Science, pages 361–385. Academic Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Stenlund. Combinators, λ-Terms, and Proof Theory. D. Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    F. van Raamsdonk. A simple proof of confluence for weakly orthogonal combinatory reduction systems. Technical Report CS-R9234, CWI, Amsterdam, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Nipkow
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenMünchen 2Germany

Personalised recommendations