skip to main content
research-article

From parametricity to conservation laws, via Noether's theorem

Published:08 January 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Invariance is of paramount importance in programming languages and in physics. In programming languages, John Reynolds' theory of relational parametricity demonstrates that parametric polymorphic programs are invariant under change of data representation, a property that yields "free" theorems about programs just from their types. In physics, Emmy Noether showed that if the action of a physical system is invariant under change of coordinates, then the physical system has a conserved quantity: a quantity that remains constant for all time. Knowledge of conserved quantities can reveal deep properties of physical systems. For example, the conservation of energy is by Noether's theorem a consequence of a system's invariance under time-shifting.

In this paper, we link Reynolds' relational parametricity with Noether's theorem for deriving conserved quantities. We propose an extension of System F$\omega$ with new kinds, types and term constants for writing programs that describe classical mechanical systems in terms of their Lagrangians. We show, by constructing a relationally parametric model of our extension of F$\omega$, that relational parametricity is enough to satisfy the hypotheses of Noether's theorem, and so to derive conserved quantities for free, directly from the polymorphic types of Lagrangians expressed in our system.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

d3_right_t1.mp4

References

  1. S. Abramsky. High-Level Methods for Quantum Computation and Information. Proceedings, LICS, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. V. I. Arnol'd. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. Springer, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. R. Atkey. Relational Parametricity for Higher Kinds. Proceedings, CSL, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. R. Atkey, N. Ghani, and P. Johann. A Relationally Parametric Model of Dependent Type Theory. Proceedings, POPL, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. Atkey, P. Johann, and A. J. Kennedy. Abstraction and Invariance for Algebraically Indexed Types.Proceedings, POPL, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J.-P. Bernardy, P. Jansson, R. Paterson.Proofs for Free: Parametricity for Dependent Types. Journal of Functional Programming 22(2), pp. 107--152, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. I. M. Gelfand and S. V. Fomin, R. A. Silverman (ed.). Calculus of Variations. Dover Publications, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Gundry. Type Inference for Units of Measure. Technical Report, University of Strathclyde, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. R. Hasegawa. Relational Limits in General Polymorphism. Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences 30, pp. 535--576, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. J. Kennedy. Dimension Types.Proceedings, ESOP, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. J. Kennedy. Relational Parametricity and Units of Measure.Proceedings, POPL, pp. 442--455, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz. Mechanics. Pergamon Press. 1967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. D. E. Neuenschwander. Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem.The John Hopkins University Press, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. E. Noether, M. Tavel (translator). Invariant Variation Problems. Transport Theory and Statistical Physics 1(3), pp. 186--207, 1971. Original in Gott. Nachr., 1918:235--257, 1918.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. S. Mac Lane. Categories for the Working Mathematician, 2nd edition. Springer, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. B. Pierce. Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. M. Pitts. Polymorphism is Set Theoretic, Constructively. Proc., Category Theory and Computer Science, pp. 12--39, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. C. Reynolds. Types, Abstraction and Parametric Polymorphism. Information Processing 83, pp. 513--523, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Robinson and G. Rosolini. ReflexiveGraphs and Parametric Polymorphism. Proc., Logic in Computer Science, pp. 364--371, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. J. Sussman and J. Wisdom. Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics. MIT Press, 2001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. The Univalent Foundations Program. Homotopy Type Theory. Institute for Advanced Study, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. P. Wadler. Theorems for Free!. Proceedings, FPCA, pp. 347--359, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. From parametricity to conservation laws, via Noether's theorem

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)16
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!