Intersection Synchronous Logic

Similar documents
AN ALTERNATIVE NATURAL DEDUCTION FOR THE INTUITIONISTIC PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

On a computational interpretation of sequent calculus for modal logic S4

Evaluation Driven Proof-Search in Natural Deduction Calculi for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic

The Curry-Howard Isomorphism

Kleene realizability and negative translations

Lazy Strong Normalization

Sequent calculus for predicate logic

Mathematical Logic and Linguistics

Propositional Logic Language

Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences CS 152: Programming Languages

Constructive approach to relevant and affine term calculi

Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic

Categories, Proofs and Programs

Subtyping and Intersection Types Revisited

Interpolation via translations

A Lambda Calculus for Gödel Dummett Logic Capturing Waitfreedom

Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic

Logical Preliminaries

Example. Lemma. Proof Sketch. 1 let A be a formula that expresses that node t is reachable from s

Lecture Notes on Linear Logic

Komponenten- und Service-orientierte Softwarekonstruktion

Natural Deduction. Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson

Adjoint Logic and Its Concurrent Semantics

Propositions as Types

CS Lecture 19: Logic To Truth through Proof. Prof. Clarkson Fall Today s music: Theme from Sherlock

Proof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics

Lecture Notes on Certifying Theorem Provers

Lecture Notes on Combinatory Modal Logic

Encoding Graph Transformation in Linear Logic

Henk Barendregt and Freek Wiedijk assisted by Andrew Polonsky. Radboud University Nijmegen. March 5, 2012

Implicit Computational Complexity

Formal Logic and Deduction Systems

First-Order Logic. Chapter Overview Syntax

EasyChair Preprint. Normalization and Taylor expansion of lambda-terms

Hypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models

Type Systems. Lecture 9: Classical Logic. Neel Krishnaswami University of Cambridge

Simply Typed λ-calculus

ACLT: Algebra, Categories, Logic in Topology - Grothendieck's generalized topological spaces (toposes)

Non-Idempotent Typing Operators, beyond the λ-calculus

Dynamic Epistemic Logic Displayed

Realisability methods of proof and semantics with application to expansion

Call-by-value non-determinism in a linear logic type discipline

Logic Part II: Intuitionistic Logic and Natural Deduction

CHAPTER 10. Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic

Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems

Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0

Computational Logic. Davide Martinenghi. Spring Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. Computational Logic Davide Martinenghi (1/30)

Lecture 10: Gentzen Systems to Refinement Logic CS 4860 Spring 2009 Thursday, February 19, 2009

Logic for Computer Science - Week 5 Natural Deduction

Denotational semantics of linear logic

Uniform Schemata for Proof Rules

Modal Logic as a Basis for Distributed Computation

Alonzo Church ( ) Lambda Calculus. λ-calculus : syntax. Grammar for terms : Inductive denition for λ-terms

Bidirectional Decision Procedures for the Intuitionistic Propositional Modal Logic IS4

Overview. I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof.

An Algebraic Proof of the Disjunction Property

Prefixed Tableaus and Nested Sequents

Outline. Overview. Syntax Semantics. Introduction Hilbert Calculus Natural Deduction. 1 Introduction. 2 Language: Syntax and Semantics

Introduction to Temporal Logic. The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either

MONADIC FRAGMENTS OF INTUITIONISTIC CONTROL LOGIC

Asterix calculus - classical computation in detail

Consequence Relations and Natural Deduction

Command = Value Context. Hans-Dieter Hiep. 15th of June, /17

Grammatical resources: logic, structure and control

An overview of Structural Proof Theory and Computing

Nonclassical logics (Nichtklassische Logiken)

Silvia Ghilezan and Jelena Ivetić

Preuves de logique linéaire sur machine, ENS-Lyon, Dec. 18, 2018

M, N ::= x λp : A.M MN (M, N) () c A. x : b p x : b

Classical First-Order Logic

Lecture Notes on The Curry-Howard Isomorphism

Lecture Notes on From Rules to Propositions

Semantical study of intuitionistic modal logics

09 Modal Logic II. CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems. October 14, Martin Henz and Aquinas Hobor

Beyond First-Order Logic

A Schütte-Tait style cut-elimination proof for first-order Gödel logic

Classical Propositional Logic

A Syntactic Realization Theorem for Justification Logics

Propositions and Proofs

Introduction to linear logic

The Method of Socratic Proofs for Normal Modal Propositional Logics

Teaching Natural Deduction as a Subversive Activity

Mathematics for linguists

Models for Efficient Timed Verification

A General Technique for Analyzing Termination in Symmetric Proof Calculi

Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1)

Cogito ergo sum non machina!

Human-Readable Machine-Verifiable Proofs for Teaching Constructive Logic

Motivation. CS389L: Automated Logical Reasoning. Lecture 10: Overview of First-Order Theories. Signature and Axioms of First-Order Theory

An Implicit Characterization of PSPACE

Part II. Logic and Set Theory. Year

Propositional and Predicate Logic. jean/gbooks/logic.html

Completeness Theorems and λ-calculus

Substructural Logics and Residuated Lattices an Introduction

A Formalised Proof of Craig s Interpolation Theorem in Nominal Isabelle

On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs

Zoran Petrić. 270 Minutes on Categorial Proof Theory

Logic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction

Applied Logic for Computer Scientists. Answers to Some Exercises

Entailment with Conditional Equality Constraints (Extended Version)

Transcription:

UnB 2007 p. 1/2 Intersection Synchronous Logic Elaine Gouvêa Pimentel Simona Ronchi della Rocca Luca Roversi UFMG/UNITO, 2007

UnB 2007 p. 2/2 Outline Motivation

UnB 2007 p. 2/2 Outline Motivation Intuitionistic Logic

UnB 2007 p. 2/2 Outline Motivation Intuitionistic Logic Intersection Types

UnB 2007 p. 2/2 Outline Motivation Intuitionistic Logic Intersection Types The logical system ISL

UnB 2007 p. 2/2 Outline Motivation Intuitionistic Logic Intersection Types The logical system ISL Curry-Howard isomorphism

UnB 2007 p. 2/2 Outline Motivation Intuitionistic Logic Intersection Types The logical system ISL Curry-Howard isomorphism Strong normalization

UnB 2007 p. 2/2 Outline Motivation Intuitionistic Logic Intersection Types The logical system ISL Curry-Howard isomorphism Strong normalization The intersection

UnB 2007 p. 3/2 Motivation IT: type system.

UnB 2007 p. 3/2 Motivation IT: type system. That is, it concerns terms and types.

UnB 2007 p. 3/2 Motivation IT: type system. That is, it concerns terms and types. Goal: to give a proof-theoretical justification for IT.

UnB 2007 p. 3/2 Motivation IT: type system. That is, it concerns terms and types. Goal: to give a proof-theoretical justification for IT. That is, reformulate Intersection Types IT by means of a pure logical system.

UnB 2007 p. 3/2 Motivation IT: type system. That is, it concerns terms and types. Goal: to give a proof-theoretical justification for IT. That is, reformulate Intersection Types IT by means of a pure logical system. Basis step: to clarify the difference between intersection and intuitionistic conjunction by imposing constraints on the use of logical and structural rules of intuitionistic logic.

UnB 2007 p. 4/2 Motivation Given a deduction Π : Γ IT M : σ, the term M records where -introductions and eliminations are used.

UnB 2007 p. 4/2 Motivation Given a deduction Π : Γ IT M : σ, the term M records where -introductions and eliminations are used. Intersection can be introduced only between formulas typing the same term.

UnB 2007 p. 4/2 Motivation Given a deduction Π : Γ IT M : σ, the term M records where -introductions and eliminations are used. Intersection can be introduced only between formulas typing the same term. ISL: never relies on λ-terms to mark the points where intersection operators of IT can be introduced.

UnB 2007 p. 5/2 Motivation Proves properties of sets of deductions of NJ.

UnB 2007 p. 5/2 Motivation Proves properties of sets of deductions of NJ. The deductions of the same set must be synchronous with respect to the use of -introduction and elimination.

UnB 2007 p. 5/2 Motivation Proves properties of sets of deductions of NJ. The deductions of the same set must be synchronous with respect to the use of -introduction and elimination. Deductions Π 1,..., Π n of NJ in the same set all have the same structure.

UnB 2007 p. 5/2 Motivation Proves properties of sets of deductions of NJ. The deductions of the same set must be synchronous with respect to the use of -introduction and elimination. Deductions Π 1,..., Π n of NJ in the same set all have the same structure. Rules of ISL must inductively build the sets of synchronous derivations of NJ as they were equivalence classes.

UnB 2007 p. 6/2 Logic and Programming The Curry-Howard isomorphism Logical formulas Types Proofs Programs Cut elimination Evaluation

UnB 2007 p. 7/2 Logic and Programming From Logic to Programming rigorous foundation for the design of Programming Languages

UnB 2007 p. 7/2 Logic and Programming From Logic to Programming rigorous foundation for the design of Programming Languages tools for automatic synthesis, verification, transformation of programs

UnB 2007 p. 8/2 Logic and Programming From Programming to Logic new problems and results in proof theory (e.g., typability problem)

UnB 2007 p. 8/2 Logic and Programming From Programming to Logic new problems and results in proof theory (e.g., typability problem) design of new logical systems inspired from programming (e.g., light logics)

UnB 2007 p. 9/2 Proofs decoration (R) φ 1,..., φ n ψ i (1 i n) φ 1,..., φ n R(ψ 1,..., ψ n )

UnB 2007 p. 9/2 Proofs decoration (R) φ 1,..., φ n ψ i (1 i n) φ 1,..., φ n R(ψ 1,..., ψ n ) x 1 : φ 1,..., x n : φ n M i : ψ i (1 i n) x 1 : φ 1,..., x n : φ n R(M 1,..., M n ) : R(ψ 1,..., ψ n )

UnB 2007 p. 10/2 An unusual case study From Computations to proofs Given a type assignment, assigning types to terms, we asked for a logical foundation of it, i.e., for a logic such that the type assignment can be seen as a decoration of it.

UnB 2007 p. 10/2 An unusual case study From Computations to proofs Given a type assignment, assigning types to terms, we asked for a logical foundation of it, i.e., for a logic such that the type assignment can be seen as a decoration of it. and back By decorating such a logic with a different technique, we built a new typed language, for expressing the discrete polymorphism, which was a longstanding open problem.

UnB 2007 p. 11/2 { }-fragment of NJ Formulae: σ, ρ, τ ::= a (σ σ) (σ σ) where a belongs to a denumerable set of constants.

UnB 2007 p. 11/2 { }-fragment of NJ Formulae: σ, ρ, τ ::= a (σ σ) (σ σ) where a belongs to a denumerable set of constants. A context is a finite sequence σ 1,..., σ m of formulae. Contexts are denoted by Γ and.

UnB 2007 p. 11/2 { }-fragment of NJ Formulae: σ, ρ, τ ::= a (σ σ) (σ σ) where a belongs to a denumerable set of constants. A context is a finite sequence σ 1,..., σ m of formulae. Contexts are denoted by Γ and. The implicative and conjunctive fragment of NJ proves statements Γ NJ σ, where Γ is a context and σ a formula.

UnB 2007 p. 12/2 { }-fragment of NJ (A) σ NJ σ (X) Γ 1, σ 1, σ 2, Γ 2 NJ σ Γ 1, σ 2, σ 1, Γ 2 NJ σ ( E l ) Γ NJ σ τ Γ NJ σ ( I) Γ, σ NJ τ Γ NJ σ τ (W) ( I) Γ NJ σ Γ NJ σ Γ, τ NJ σ Γ NJ τ Γ NJ σ τ ( E r ) Γ NJ σ τ Γ NJ τ ( E) Γ NJ σ τ Γ NJ σ Γ NJ τ

UnB 2007 p. 13/2 Decorating NJ (A) x :σ NJ x :σ (X) Γ 1, x :σ 1, y :σ 2, Γ 2 NJ M :σ Γ 1, y :σ 2, x :σ 1, Γ 2 NJ M :σ ( E l ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ π l(m) :σ ( I) Γ, x :σ NJ M :τ Γ NJ λx.m :σ τ ( (W) Γ NJ M :σ x dom(γ) Γ, x :τ NJ M :σ ( I) Γ NJ M :σ Γ NJ N :τ Γ NJ (M, N) :σ τ ( E r ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ π r(m) :τ E) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ N : Γ NJ MN :τ

UnB 2007 p. 13/2 Decorating NJ (A) x :σ NJ x :σ (X) Γ 1, x :σ 1, y :σ 2, Γ 2 NJ M :σ Γ 1, y :σ 2, x :σ 1, Γ 2 NJ M :σ ( E l ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ π l(m) :σ ( I) Γ, x :σ NJ M :τ Γ NJ λx.m :σ τ ( (W) Γ NJ M :σ x dom(γ) Γ, x :τ NJ M :σ ( I) Γ NJ M :σ Γ NJ M :τ Γ NJ (M, N) :σ τ ( E r ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ π r(m) :τ E) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ N : Γ NJ MN :τ

UnB 2007 p. 13/2 Decorating NJ (A) x :σ NJ x :σ (X) Γ 1, x :σ 1, y :σ 2, Γ 2 NJ M :σ Γ 1, y :σ 2, x :σ 1, Γ 2 NJ M :σ ( E l ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ π l(m) :σ ( I) Γ, x :σ NJ M :τ Γ NJ λx.m :σ τ ( (W) Γ NJ M :σ x dom(γ) Γ, x :τ NJ M :σ ( I) Γ NJ M :σ Γ NJ M :τ Γ NJ M :σ τ ( E r ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ π r(m) :τ E) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ N : Γ NJ MN :τ

UnB 2007 p. 13/2 Decorating NJ (A) x :σ NJ x :σ (X) Γ 1, x :σ 1, y :σ 2, Γ 2 NJ M :σ Γ 1, y :σ 2, x :σ 1, Γ 2 NJ M :σ ( E l ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ M :σ ( I) Γ, x :σ NJ M :τ Γ NJ λx.m :σ τ ( (W) Γ NJ M :σ x dom(γ) Γ, x :τ NJ M :σ ( I) Γ NJ M :σ Γ NJ M :τ Γ NJ M :σ τ ( E r ) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ M :τ E) Γ NJ M :σ τ Γ NJ N : Γ NJ MN :τ

UnB 2007 p. 14/2 IT (A) x :σ IT x :σ (X) Γ 1, x :σ 1, y :σ 2, Γ 2 IT M :σ Γ 1, y :σ 2, x :σ 1, Γ 2 IT M :σ ( E l ) Γ IT M :σ τ Γ IT M :σ ( I) Γ, x :σ IT M :τ Γ IT λx.m :σ τ ( (W) Γ IT M :σ x dom(γ) Γ, x :τ IT M :σ ( I) Γ IT M :σ Γ IT M :τ Γ IT M :σ τ ( E r ) Γ IT M :σ τ Γ IT M :τ E) Γ IT M :σ τ Γ IT N :σ Γ IT MN :τ

UnB 2007 p. 15/2 IT IT is usually presented in the literature in a different style.

UnB 2007 p. 15/2 IT IT is usually presented in the literature in a different style. Contexts are sets of pairs {x 1 : σ 1,...,x n : σ n }, and the three rules (A),(W),(X) are replaced by: (A) x : σ Γ Γ NJ x : σ

UnB 2007 p. 15/2 IT IT is usually presented in the literature in a different style. Contexts are sets of pairs {x 1 : σ 1,...,x n : σ n }, and the three rules (A),(W),(X) are replaced by: (A) x : σ Γ Γ NJ x : σ The two formulations are equivalent.

UnB 2007 p. 15/2 IT IT is usually presented in the literature in a different style. Contexts are sets of pairs {x 1 : σ 1,...,x n : σ n }, and the three rules (A),(W),(X) are replaced by: (A) x : σ Γ Γ NJ x : σ The two formulations are equivalent. Since we are interested to explore the structures of the proofs, we need to express explicitly the structural rules.

UnB 2007 p. 16/2 Properties of IT IT characterizes the strongly normalizable terms

UnB 2007 p. 16/2 Properties of IT IT characterizes the strongly normalizable terms IT is undecidable

UnB 2007 p. 16/2 Properties of IT IT characterizes the strongly normalizable terms IT is undecidable IT has the principal typing property: if a term M can be typed then it has a principal typing such that all and only their typings can be obtained from it by means of suitable operations

UnB 2007 p. 17/2 The problem Is there a logical foundation for IT?

UnB 2007 p. 17/2 The problem Is there a logical foundation for IT? i.e.

UnB 2007 p. 17/2 The problem Is there a logical foundation for IT? i.e. is there a logic such that IT can be obtained from it through a decoration?

UnB 2007 p. 18/2 Refining NJ NJr is a type assignment for λ-terms with pairs.

UnB 2007 p. 18/2 Refining NJ NJr is a type assignment for λ-terms with pairs. NJr splits the original conjunction of NJ into two.

UnB 2007 p. 18/2 Refining NJ NJr is a type assignment for λ-terms with pairs. NJr splits the original conjunction of NJ into two. : synchronous conjunction that keeps giving type to M, identical to N.

UnB 2007 p. 18/2 Refining NJ NJr is a type assignment for λ-terms with pairs. NJr splits the original conjunction of NJ into two. : synchronous conjunction that keeps giving type to M, identical to N. &: asynchronous conjunction that gives type to the pair (M,N), since M and N are distinct.

UnB 2007 p. 18/2 Refining NJ NJr is a type assignment for λ-terms with pairs. NJr splits the original conjunction of NJ into two. : synchronous conjunction that keeps giving type to M, identical to N. &: asynchronous conjunction that gives type to the pair (M,N), since M and N are distinct. Synchronous conjunction and the intersection have the same symbol: the two connectives are strongly related.

UnB 2007 p. 19/2 NJr (A) x : σ NJr x : σ (W) Γ NJr M : σ x dom(γ) Γ, x : τ NJr M : σ ( I) Γ NJr M : σ Γ NJr M : τ Γ NJr M : σ τ ( E l ) Γ NJr M : σ τ Γ NJr M : σ (&E l ) ( I) Γ NJr M : σ&τ Γ NJr π l (M) : σ Γ, x : σ NJr M : τ Γ NJr λx.m : σ τ (X) Γ 1, x : σ 1, y : σ 2, Γ 2 NJr M : σ Γ 1, y : σ 2, x : σ 1, Γ 2 NJr M : σ (&I) Γ NJr M : σ Γ NJr N : τ Γ NJr (M, N) : σ&τ ( E r ) Γ NJr M : σ τ Γ NJr M : τ (&E r ) Γ NJr M : σ&τ Γ NJr π r (M) : τ ( E) Γ NJr M : σ τ Γ NJr N : σ Γ NJr MN : τ

UnB 2007 p. 20/2 NJr Intuitively, NJr identifies derivations of NJ which are synchronous w.r.t. the introduction and the elimination of the implication.

UnB 2007 p. 20/2 NJr Intuitively, NJr identifies derivations of NJ which are synchronous w.r.t. the introduction and the elimination of the implication. merges sub-deductions where is introduced or eliminated in the same points, namely, up to the use of the two kinds of conjunctions.

UnB 2007 p. 20/2 NJr Intuitively, NJr identifies derivations of NJ which are synchronous w.r.t. the introduction and the elimination of the implication. merges sub-deductions where is introduced or eliminated in the same points, namely, up to the use of the two kinds of conjunctions. IT is a sub-system of NJr where only synchronous conjunction is used.

NJr Intuitively, NJr identifies derivations of NJ which are synchronous w.r.t. the introduction and the elimination of the implication. merges sub-deductions where is introduced or eliminated in the same points, namely, up to the use of the two kinds of conjunctions. IT is a sub-system of NJr where only synchronous conjunction is used. ISL gets rid of λ-terms to get the same properties as IT. UnB 2007 p. 20/2

UnB 2007 p. 21/2 The logical system ISL Formulae of ISL are formulas of NJr. Contexts are finite sequences of such formulae.

UnB 2007 p. 21/2 The logical system ISL Formulae of ISL are formulas of NJr. Contexts are finite sequences of such formulae. An atom is a pair A : (Γ;α).

UnB 2007 p. 21/2 The logical system ISL Formulae of ISL are formulas of NJr. Contexts are finite sequences of such formulae. An atom is a pair A : (Γ;α). Molecule M = [A 1,..., A n ]: a finite multiset of atoms such that the contexts in all atoms have the same cardinality.

ISL [(α i ; α i ) 1 i r] (A) M N M (P) [(Γ i ; β i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i, α i ; β i ) 1 i r] (W) [(Γ i 1, β i, α i, Γ i 2; σ i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i 1, α i, β i, Γ i 2; σ i ) 1 i r] (X) [(Γ i, α i ; β i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i ; α i β i ) 1 i r] ( I) [(Γ i ; α i β i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i ; α i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i ; β i ) 1 i r] ( E) [(Γ i ; α i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i ; β i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i ; α i &β i ) 1 i r] (&I) UnB 2007 p. 22/2

UnB 2007 p. 23/2 ISL [(Γ i ; α i &β i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i ; α i ) 1 i r] (&E L ) [(Γ i ; α i &β i ) 1 i r] [(Γ i ; β i ) 1 i r] (&E R ) M [(Γ;α), (Γ; β)] M [(Γ;α β)] ( I) M [(Γ;α β)] M [(Γ;α)] ( E L ) M [(Γ;α β)] M [(Γ;β)] ( E R )

UnB 2007 p. 24/2 Example [(α, β; α), (α, β; β)]

UnB 2007 p. 24/2 Example [(α, β; α), (α, β; β)] [(α, β; α)], [(α, β; β)]

UnB 2007 p. 24/2 Example [(α, β; α), (α, β; β)] [(α, β; α)], [(α, β; β)] [(α; α)], [(β; β)] [(α, β; α)], [(β, α; β)] (W) [(α, β; α)], [(α, β; β)] (X) (&I) [(α, β; α&β)]

UnB 2007 p. 25/2...and back By decorating ISL, we obtain a typed programming language for discrete polymorphism, a longstanding open problem.

UnB 2007 p. 26/2 ISL and NJ Let M i = [(Γ i 1;α1),...,(Γ i i m i ;αm i i )] for 1 i n. Then ISL M 1 : (M 1 )...M n : (M n ) if and only if Γ i j NJr M i : αj i That is, a molecule represents a set of synchronous proofs of NJ.

UnB 2007 p. 26/2 ISL and NJ Let M i = [(Γ i 1;α1),...,(Γ i i m i ;αm i i )] for 1 i n. Then ISL M 1 : (M 1 )...M n : (M n ) if and only if Γ i j NJr M i : αj i That is, a molecule represents a set of synchronous proofs of NJ. ISL is a logic internalizing the difference between synchronicity and asynchronicity in NJ.

UnB 2007 p. 27/2 ISL and IT Let M i = [(Γ i 1; α i 1),..., (Γ i m i ; α i m i )] for 1 i n and suppose that ISL M 1 : (M 1 )... M n : (M n ) where M i doesn t have any occurrence of π 1, π 2 or (.,.) and M i doesn t have any occurrence of the connective. Then Γ i j IT M i : α i j

UnB 2007 p. 27/2 ISL and IT Let M i = [(Γ i 1; α i 1),..., (Γ i m i ; α i m i )] for 1 i n and suppose that ISL M 1 : (M 1 )... M n : (M n ) where M i doesn t have any occurrence of π 1, π 2 or (.,.) and M i doesn t have any occurrence of the connective. Then Γ i j IT M i : α i j Γ IT M : α implies ISL M : [(Γ) ; α]

UnB 2007 p. 27/2 ISL and IT Let M i = [(Γ i 1; α i 1),..., (Γ i m i ; α i m i )] for 1 i n and suppose that ISL M 1 : (M 1 )... M n : (M n ) where M i doesn t have any occurrence of π 1, π 2 or (.,.) and M i doesn t have any occurrence of the connective. Then Γ i j IT M i : α i j Γ IT M : α implies ISL M : [(Γ) ; α] ISL is strongly normalizable.

UnB 2007 p. 28/2 The intersection The implication ( ) is the adjoint of the conjunction (&): [( ;A&B C)] [( ;A B C)].

UnB 2007 p. 28/2 The intersection The implication ( ) is the adjoint of the conjunction (&): [( ;A&B C)] [( ;A B C)]. Does the intersection has also an adjoint ( )?

UnB 2007 p. 28/2 The intersection The implication ( ) is the adjoint of the conjunction (&): [( ;A&B C)] [( ;A B C)]. Does the intersection has also an adjoint ( )? If the answer is yes, there exists a function f, of two arguments: f : A B C that can take one at a time, independently: f : A B C

UnB 2007 p. 28/2 The intersection The implication ( ) is the adjoint of the conjunction (&): [( ;A&B C)] [( ;A B C)]. Does the intersection has also an adjoint ( )? If the answer is yes, there exists a function f, of two arguments: f : A B C that can take one at a time, independently: f : A B C Impossible since A and B are not at all independent: they are labelled by the same variable x.

UnB 2007 p. 28/2 The intersection The implication ( ) is the adjoint of the conjunction (&): [( ;A&B C)] [( ;A B C)]. Does the intersection has also an adjoint ( )? If the answer is yes, there exists a function f, of two arguments: f : A B C that can take one at a time, independently: f : A B C Impossible since A and B are not at all independent: they are labelled by the same variable x. Hence the system ISL gives a nice way of describing conjunction: it is a connective that has an asynchronous behavior.

UnB 2007 p. 29/2 Future work Operational semantics.

UnB 2007 p. 29/2 Future work Operational semantics. Sequent calculus.

UnB 2007 p. 29/2 Future work Operational semantics. Sequent calculus. Proof nets.

UnB 2007 p. 29/2 Future work Operational semantics. Sequent calculus. Proof nets. ISL IT λ-calculus Strongly Normalizing λ-terms