Advertisement

Free variables and subexpressions in higher-order meta logic

  • Chuck Liang
Refereed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1479)

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of how to represent free variables and subexpressions involving Β-bindings. The aim is to apply what is known as higher-order abstract syntax to higher-order term rewriting systems. Directly applying Β-reduction for the purpose of subterm-replacement is incompatible with the requirements of term-rewriting. A new meta-level representation of subterms is developed that will allow term-rewriting systems to be formulated in a higher-order meta logic.

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Free Variable Parent Term Logic Programming Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thierry Coquand and Gérard Huet. The calculus of constructions. Information and Computation, 76(2/3):95–120, February/March 1988.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    JoËlle Despeyroux, Amy Felty, and André Hirschowitz. Higher-order abstract syntax in Coq. In Second International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, pages 124–138. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, April 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amy Felty. A logic programming approach to implementing higher-order term rewriting. In Lars-Henrik Eriksson, Lars HallnÄs, and Peter Schroeder-Heister, editors, Proceedings of the January 1991 Workshop on Extensions to Logic Programming, volume 596 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 135–161. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amy Felty. Implementing tactics and tacticals in a higher-order logic programming language. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11(1):43–81, August 1993.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    John Hannan. Extended natural semantics. Journal of Functional Programming, 3(2):123–152, April 1993.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. M. Hill and J. G. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. Technical Report Report 94.22, University of Leeds, hill@scs.leeds.ac.uk, August 1994. To appear in Vol. 5 of the Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gérard Huet. A unification algorithm for typed λ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 1:27–57, 1975.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chuck Liang. Substitution, Unification and Generalization in Meta-Logic. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, September 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chuck Liang. Let-polymorphism and eager type schemes. In TAPSOFT '97: Theory and Practice of Software Development, pages 490–501. Springer Verlag LNCS Vol. 1214, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. McDowell and D. Miller. A logic for reasoning with higher-order abstract syntax. In Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dale Miller. Abstractions in logic programming. In Piergiorgio Odifreddi, editor, Logic and Computer Science, pages 329–359. Academic Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dale Miller. A logic programming language with lambda-abstraction, function variables, and simple unification. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1(4):497–536, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dale Miller. Unification under a mixed prefix. Journal of Symbolic Computation, pages 321–358, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dale Miller, Gopalan Nadathur, Frank Pfenning, and Andre Scedrov. Uniform proofs as a foundation for logic programming. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 51:125–157, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tobias Nipkow. Higher-order critical pairs. In G. Kahn, editor, Sixth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 342–349. IEEE, July 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lawrence C. Paulson. The foundation of a generic theorem prover. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 5:363–397, September 1989.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frank Pfenning and Conal Elliot. Higher-order abstract syntax. In Proceedings of the ACM-SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 199–208. ACM Press, June 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chuck Liang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTrinity CollegeHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations