progress on my updates to section 2

This commit is contained in:
Jeremy Siek 2019-07-11 16:37:06 -04:00
parent ae503a2534
commit 444fd1d3d6
2 changed files with 135 additions and 2 deletions

View file

@ -283,4 +283,94 @@
pages={38--94},
year={1994},
publisher={San Diego: Academic Press, c1987-}
}
}
@article{Abadi-1991,
Author = {Abadi, M. and Cardelli, L. and Curien, P.-L. and Levy, J.-J.},
Journal = {Journal of Functional Programming},
Number = {4},
Pages = {375-416},
Title = {Explicit Substitutions},
Volume = {1},
Year = {1991}}
@book{Barendregt-1984,
Author = {H.P. Barendregt},
Publisher = {Elsevier},
Series = {Studies in Logic},
Title = {The Lambda Calculus},
Volume = {103},
Year = {1984}}
@inproceedings{Schafer-Tebbi-Smolka-2015,
Author = {Steven Sch{\"{a}}fer and Tobias Tebbi and Gert Smolka},
Booktitle = {Interactive Theorem Proving - 6th International Conference},
Month = {August},
Pages = {359--374},
Publisher = {Springer},
Series = {ITP},
Title = {Autosubst: Reasoning with de Bruijn Terms and Parallel Substitutions},
Year = {2015}}
@techreport{Pfenning-1992,
Address = {Pittsburgh, PA, USA},
Author = {Pfenning, Frank},
Institution = {Carnegie Mellon University},
Number = {CMU-CS-92-186},
Title = {A Proof of the Church-Rosser Theorem and Its Representation in a Logical Framework},
Year = {1992}}
@article{Siek-2017,
Author = {Jeremy G. Siek},
Journal = {CoRR},
Number = {4},
Title = {Revisiting Elementary Denotational Semantics},
Volume = {abs/1707.03762},
Year = {2017}}
@article{Scott-1976,
Author = {Dana Scott},
Journal = {SIAM Journal on Computing},
Number = {3},
Pages = {522-587},
Title = {Data Types as Lattices},
Volume = {5},
Year = {1976}}
@article{Engeler-1981,
Author = {Engeler, Erwin},
Journal = {algebra universalis},
Month = {Dec},
Number = {1},
Pages = {389--392},
Title = {Algebras and combinators},
Volume = {13},
Year = {1981}}
@article{Plotkin-1993,
Author = {Gordon D. Plotkin},
Journal = {Theoretical Computer Science},
Number = {1},
Pages = {351 - 409},
Title = {Set-theoretical and other elementary models of the λ-calculus},
Volume = {121},
Year = {1993}}
@article{Barendregt-1983,
Author = {Henk Barendregt and Mario Coppo and Mariangiola Dezani-Ciancaglini},
Journal = {Journal of Symbolic Logic},
Month = {12},
Number = {4},
Pages = {931-940},
Title = {A filter lambda model and the completeness of type assignment},
Volume = {48},
Year = {1983}}

View file

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
\author[adr1]{Wen Kokke}
\ead{wen.kokke@ed.ac.uk}
\author[adr2]{Jeremy Siek}
\author[adr2]{Jeremy G. Siek}
\ead{jsiek@indiana.edu}
\author[adr1]{Philip Wadler\corref{cor1}}
\ead{wadler@inf.ed.ac.uk}
@ -287,6 +287,49 @@ with full normalisation (including reduction under lambda terms). Emphasis
is put on the correspondence between the structure of a term and
evidence that it is in normal form.
\paragraph{Substitution: in the untyped lambda calculus}
Delves deeper into the properties of simultaneous substitution,
establishing the equations of the $\sigma$ algebra of
\citet{Abadi-1991}. These equations enable a straightforward proof of
the Substitution Lemma~\citep{Barendregt-1984}, which is needed in the
next chapter.
\paragraph{Confluence: of the untyped lambda calculus}
Presents a proof of the Church-Rosser theorem based on the classic
idea of parallel reduction due to Tait and Martin-L\"of. The proof in
Agda is streamlined by the use of ideas from
\citet{Schafer-Tebbi-Smolka-2015} and \citet{Pfenning-1992}.
\paragraph{Big-step: evaluation for call-by-name}
Introduces the notion of big-step evaluation to develop a
deterministic call-by-name reduction strategy. The main result of this
chapter is a proof that big-step evaluation implies the existence of a
reduction sequence that terminates with a lambda abstraction.
\subsection*{Part III, Denotational Semantics}
\paragraph{Denotational: semantics of the untyped lambda calculus}
The early denotational semantics of the lambda calculus based on graph
models~\citep{Scott-1976,Engeler-1981,Plotkin-1993} and filter
models~\citep{Barendregt-1983} were particularly simple and elegant.
This chapter presents such a semantics in a big-step style that is
approachable to readers familiar with operational semantics.
\paragraph{Compositional: the denotational semantics is compositional}
TODO
\paragraph{Soundness: of reduction with respect to denotational semantics}
TODO
\paragraph{Adequacy: of denotational semantics with respect to reduction}
TODO
\paragraph{Contextual Equivalence: is implied by denotational equality}
TODO
\subsection*{Discussion}
PLFA and SF differ in several particulars. PLFA begins with a computationally