skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

A fine-grained computational interpretation of Girard’s intuitionistic proof-nets

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 January 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper introduces a functional term calculus, called pn, that captures the essence of the operational semantics of Intuitionistic Linear Logic Proof-Nets with a faithful degree of granularity, both statically and dynamically. On the static side, we identify an equivalence relation on pn-terms which is sound and complete with respect to the classical notion of structural equivalence for proof-nets. On the dynamic side, we show that every single (exponential) step in the term calculus translates to a different single (exponential) step in the graphical formalism, thus capturing the original Girard’s granularity of proof-nets but on the level of terms. We also show some fundamental properties of the calculus such as confluence, strong normalization, preservation of β-strong normalization and the existence of a strong bisimulation that captures pairs of pn-terms having the same graph reduction.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

Auxiliary Presentation Video

This is a presentation video of my talk at POPL 2022 on my paper entitled "A Fine-Grained Computational Interpretation of Girard's Intuitionistic Proof-Nets". This paper introduces a functional term calculus, called pn, that captures the essence of the operational semantics of Intuitionistic Linear Logic Proof-Nets with a faithful degree of granularity, both statically and dynamically. We also show some fundamental properties of the calculus such as confluence, strong normalization, preservation of beta-strong normalization and the existence of a strong bisimulation that captures pairs of pn-terms having the same graph reduction.

References

  1. Martín Abadi, Luca Cardelli, Pierre Louis Curien, and Jean-Jacques Lévy. 1991. Explicit substitutions. Journal of Functional Programming, 4, 1 (1991), 375–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796800000186 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Samson Abramsky. 1993. Computational interpretations of linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 111 (1993), 3–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(93)90181-R Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Beniamino Accattoli. 2011. Jumping around the box: graphical and operational studies on Lambda Calculus and Linear Logic.. Università di Roma La Sapienza.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Beniamino Accattoli. 2018. Proof Nets and the Linear Substitution Calculus. In 15th Int. Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC), Bernd Fischer and Tarmo Uustalu (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11187). Springer, 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02508-3_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Beniamino Accattoli, Pablo Barenbaum, and Damiano Mazza. 2014. Distilling Abstract Machines. In 19th ACM SIGPLAN Int. Conf. on Functional Programming (ICFP), Manuel Chakravarty (Ed.). ACM Press, 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1145/2628136.2628154 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Beniamino Accattoli, Eduardo Bonelli, Delia Kesner, and Carlos Lombardi. 2014. A nonstandard standardization theorem. In The 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’14, January 20-21, 2014, Suresh Jagannathan and Peter Sewell (Eds.). ACM Press, San Diego, CA, USA. 659–670. https://doi.org/10.1145/2535838.2535886 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Beniamino Accattoli and Stefano Guerrini. 2009. Jumping Boxes. Representing lambda-calculus boxes by jumps. In Proceedings of the 18th EACSL Conf. on Computer Science Logic (CSL), Erich Grädel and Reinhard Kahle (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5771). Springer-Verlag, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04027-6_7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Beniamino Accattoli and Delia Kesner. 2010. The Structural lambda-Calculus. In Proceedings of 24th EACSL Conf. on Computer Science Logic (CSL), Anuj Dawar and Helmut Veith (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6247). Springer-Verlag, 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15205-4_30 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Beniamino Accattoli and Delia Kesner. 2012. Preservation of Strong Normalisation modulo permutations for the structural λ -calculus. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 8, 1 (2012), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.2168/LMCS-8(1:28)2012 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. 1990. ACM Press. isbn:0-89791-343-4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Andrea Asperti, Cecilia Giovanetti, and Andrea Naletto. 1996. The Bologna Optimal Higher-Order Machine. J. Funct. Program., 6, 6 (1996), 763–810. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796800001994 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Pablo Barenbaum and Eduardo Bonelli. 2017. Optimality and the Linear Substitution Calculus. In 2nd Int. Conf. on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction (FSCD), Dale Miller (Ed.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 84). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 9:1–9:16. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2017.9 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Nick Benton, Gavin Bierman, Valeria de Paiva, and Martin Hyland. 1993. A Term Calculus for Intuitionistic Linear Logic. In Proceedings of the 1st Int. Conf. on Typed Lambda Calculus and Applications (TLCA), Jan Friso Groote and Marc Bezem (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 664). Springer-Verlag, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0037099 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Roel Bloo and Kristoffer Rose. 1995. Preservation of Strong Normalization in Named Lambda Calculi with Explicit Substitution and Garbage Collection. In Computing Science in the Netherlands. Netherlands Computer Science Research Foundation, 62–72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alonzo Church. 1932. A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics, 33, 2 (1932), 346–366.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Pierre-Louis Curien. 1991. An abstract framework for environment machines. Theoretical Computer Science, 82, 2 (1991), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(91)90230-Y Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Vincent Danos. 1990. La Logique Linéaire appliquée à l’étude de divers processus de normalisation (principalement du lambda-calcul). Université Paris 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Vincent Danos, Hugo Herbelin, and Laurent Regnier. 1996. Game Semantics & Abstract Machines. In 11th IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), Edmund M. Clarke (Ed.). IEEE Computer Society, 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.1996.561456 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Vincent Danos and Laurent Regnier. 1999. Reversible, irreversible and optimal lambda-machines. Theoretical Computer Science, 227, 1 (1999), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(99)00049-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Olivier Danvy and Ian Zerny. 2013. A synthetic operational account of call-by-need evaluation. In 15th Int. Symp. on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, (PPDP), Ricardo Peña and Tom Schrijvers (Eds.). ACM Press, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1145/2505879.2505898 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Nicolaas Govert de Bruijn. 1978. A namefree lambda calculus with facilities for internal definition of expressions and segments. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicolaas Govert de Bruijn. 1987. Generalizing Automath by Means of a Lambda-Typed Lambda Calculus. In Mathematical Logic and Theoretical Computer Science, Edgar G.K. Lopez-Escobar David W. Kueker and Carl H. Smith (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 106). Marcel Dekker, 71–92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 1995. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0014040 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Roberto Di Cosmo and Delia Kesner. 1994. Simulating Expansions without Expansions. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 4 (1994), 315–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129500000505 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Roberto Di Cosmo and Delia Kesner. 1997. Strong Normalization of Explicit Substitutions via Cut Elimination in Proof Nets (Extended Abstract). In Proceedings, 12th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, June 29 - July 2, 1997. IEEE Computer Society, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.1997.614927 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Roberto Di Cosmo, Delia Kesner, and Emmanuel Polonovski. 2003. Proof Nets and Explicit Substitutions. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 13, 3 (2003), 409–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129502003791 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Roberto Di Cosmo and Adolfo Piperno. 1995. Expanding Extensional Polymorphism. 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0014050 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Thomas Ehrhard and Laurent Regnier. 2006. Differential interaction nets. Theoretical Computer Science, 364, 2 (2006), 166–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2006.08.003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Maribel Fernández and Nikolaos Siafakas. 2014. Labelled calculi of resources. J. Log. Comput., 24, 3 (2014), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exs021 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Neil Ghani, Valeria de Paiva, and Eike Ritter. 1999. Categorical Models of Explicit Substitutions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1578. Springer, 197–211. isbn:3-540-65719-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49019-1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Neil Ghani, Valeria de Paiva, and Eike Ritter. 2000. Linear Explicit Substitutions. Logic Journal of the Interest Group of Pure and Applied Logic, 8, 1 (2000), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/8.1.7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jean-Yves Girard. 1988. Geometry of interaction 1: Interpretation of System F. In Logic Colloquium 88. North Holland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jean-Yves Girard. 1988. Geometry of interaction 2: deadlock-free algorithms. In COLOG-88, International Conference on Computer Logic, Tallinn, USSR, December 1988, Proceedings, Per Martin-Löf and Grigori Mints (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 417). Springer, 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-52335-9_49 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jean-Yves Girard. 1987. Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50, 1 (1987), 1–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(87)90045-4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Jean-Yves Girard. 1996. Proof-nets: The parallel syntax for proof-theory (Lecture Notes in Pure Applied Mathematics, Vol. 180). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 97–124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jean-Yves Girard. 1996. Proof-nets: The parallel syntax for proof-theory. In Logic and Algebra. Marcel Dekker, 97–124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Timothy Griffin. 1990. A Formulae-as-Types Notion of Control. 47–58. isbn:0-89791-343-4 https://doi.org/10.1145/96709.96714 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Tom Gundersen, Willem Heijltjes, and Michel Parigot. 2013. Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing. In 28th Annual ACM/IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), Orna Kupferman (Ed.). IEEE Computer Society, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2013.37 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Thérèse Hardin and Jean-Jacques Lévy. 1989. A Confluent Calculus of Substitutions. In France-Japan Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science Symposium. 1–25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Peter Henderson and James H. Morris. 1976. A Lazy Evaluator. In 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), Susan L. Graham, Robert M. Graham, Michael A. Harrison, William I. Grosky, and Jeffrey D. Ullman (Eds.). ACM Press, 95–103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Hugo Herbelin. 1994. A λ -Calculus Structure Isomorphic to Gentzen-Style Sequent Calculus Structure. In Proceedings of the 8th EACSL Conf. on Computer Science Logic (CSL), Leszek Pacholski and Jerzy Tiuryn (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 933). Springer-Verlag, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0022247 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Dominic J. D. Hughes and Rob J. van Glabbeek. 2005. Proof nets for unit-free multiplicative-additive linear logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 6, 4 (2005), 784–842. https://doi.org/10.1145/1094622.1094629 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Fairouz Kamareddine and Alejandro Ríos. 1995. A λ -calculus à la de Bruijn with explicit substitutions. In Proceedings of the 7th Int. Symp. on Proceedings of the International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, Doaitse Swierstra and Manuel Hermenegildo (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 982). Springer-Verlag, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026813 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Delia Kesner. 2007. The Theory of Calculi with Explicit Substitutions Revisited. In Proceedings of the 16th EACSL Conf. on Computer Science Logic (CSL), Jacques Duparc and Thomas Henzinger (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4646). Springer-Verlag, 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74915-8_20 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Delia Kesner, Eduardo Bonelli, and Andrés Viso. 2020. Strong Bisimulation for Control Operators (Invited Talk). In 28th EACSL Annual Conf. on Computer Science Logic, CSL 2020, January 13-16, 2020, Barcelona, Spain, Maribel Fernández and Anca Muscholl (Eds.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 152). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 4:1–4:23. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2020.4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Delia Kesner and Stéphane Lengrand. 2005. Extending the Explicit Substitution Paradigm. In 16th Int. Conf. on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA), Jürgen Giesl (Ed.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3467). Springer-Verlag, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32033-3_30 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Jean-Louis Krivine. 2007. A Call-by-name Lambda-calculus Machine. Higher Order and Symbolic Computation, 20, 3 (2007), Sept., 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10990-007-9018-9 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Ambroise Lafont. 2019. Signatures and models for syntax and operational semantics in the presence of variable binding. L’École Nationale Superieure Mines-Telecom Atlantique Bretagne Pays de la Loire - IMT Atlantique.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. John Lamping. 1990. An algorithm for optimal lambda calculus reduction. 16–30. isbn:0-89791-343-4 https://doi.org/10.1145/96709.96711 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Peter J. Landin. 1964. The Mechanical Evaluation of Expressions. Comput. J., 6, 4 (1964), 308–320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Olivier Laurent. 2002. Etude de la polarisation en logique. Université Aix-Marseille II.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Olivier Laurent. 2003. Polarized proof-nets and lambda-mu calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 1, 290 (2003), 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00297-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Xavier Leroy. 1990. The ZINC Experiment: an economical implementation of the ML language. INRIA Rocquencourt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ian Mackie. 1998. YALE: Yet Another Lambda Evaluator Based on Interaction Nets. In 3rd ACM SIGPLAN Int. Conf. on Functional Programming (ICFP), Matthias Felleisen, Paul Hudak, and Christian Queinnec (Eds.). ACM Press, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1145/289423.289434 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Per Martin-Löf. 1972. An intuitionistic theory of types. Unpublished.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Paul-André Melliès. 1995. Typed λ -calculi with explicit substitutions may not terminate. 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0014062 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Robin Milner. 2006. Local bigraphs and confluence: two conjectures. In Proceedings of the 13th Int. Workshop on Expressiveness in Concurrency (EXPRESS), Roberto Amadio and Iain Phillips (Eds.). 175, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2006.07.035 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Koko Muroya and Dan R. Ghica. 2017. The Dynamic Geometry of Interaction Machine: A Call-by-Need Graph Rewriter. In 26th EACSL Annual Conf. on Computer Science Logic, CSL 2017, August 20-24, 2017, Stockholm, Sweden, Valentin Goranko and Mads Dam (Eds.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 82). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 32:1–32:15. isbn:978-3-95977-045-3 https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2017.32 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Robert. P. Nederpelt. 1992. The fine-structure of lambda calculus. Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Michel Parigot. 1992. λ μ -calculus: an algorithmic interpretation of classical natural deduction. In Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, Andrei Voronkov (Ed.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 624). Springer-Verlag, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0013061 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Laurent Regnier. 1992. Lambda-calcul et réseaux. Université Paris 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Laurent Regnier. 1994. Une équivalence sur les lambda-termes. Theoretical Computer Science, 2, 126 (1994), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(94)90012-4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Eike Ritter. 1999. Characterising Explicit Substitutions which Preserve Termination. In Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, 4th International Conference, TLCA’99, L’Aquila, Italy, April 7-9, 1999, Proceedings, Jean-Yves Girard (Ed.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1581). Springer-Verlag, 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48959-2_23 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Kristoffer Rose. 1992. Explicit Cyclic Substitutions. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Conditional Term Rewriting Systems (CTRS), Michaël Rusinowitch and Jean-Luc Rémy (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 656). Springer-Verlag, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56393-8_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Peter Sestoft. 1997. Deriving a Lazy Abstract Machine. J. Funct. Program., 7, 3 (1997), 231–264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Paula Severi and Erik Poll. 1994. Pure Type Systems with Definitions. In Logical Foundations of Computer Science’94 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 813). Springer-Verlag, 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58140-5_30 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Terese. 2003. Term Rewriting Systems (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 55). Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Christopher Wadsworth. 1971. Semantics and Pragmatics of the Lambda Calculus. Oxford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A fine-grained computational interpretation of Girard’s intuitionistic proof-nets

    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

    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!