Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:11:53.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A direct proof of the finite developments theorem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Roel de Vrijer*
Affiliation:
Interfakultaire Vakgroep Logika en Grondslagen van de Wiskunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Extract

Let M be a term of the type free λ-calculus and let be a set of occurrences of redexes in M. A reduction sequence from M which first contracts a member of and afterwards only residuals of is called a development (of M with respect to ). The finite developments theorem says that developments are always finite.

There are several proofs of this theorem in the literature. A plausible strategy is to define some kind of measure for pairs (M, ), which—if M′ results from M by contracting a redex occurrence in and ′ is the set of residuals of in M′— decreases in passing from (M, ) to (M′, ′). This procedure is followed as a matter of fact in the proofs in Hyland [4] and in Barendregt [1] (both are covered in Klop [5]). If, as in the latter proof, the natural numbers are used as measures, then the measure of (M, ) will actually denote an upper bound of the number of reduction steps in a development of M with respect to .

In the present proof we straightforwardly define for each pair (M, ) a natural number, which can easily be seen to indicate the exact number of reduction steps in a development of maximal length of M with respect to .

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Barendregt, H. P., The lambda calculus, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981.Google Scholar
[2]van Daalen, D. T., The language theory of Automath, Dissertation, Technological University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 1980.Google Scholar
[3]Hindley, R., Reductions of residuals are finite, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 240 (1978), pp. 345361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Hyland, M., A simple proof of the Church-Rosser theorem, Typescript, Oxford University, Oxford, 1973.Google Scholar
[5]Klop, J. W., Combinatory reduction systems, Dissertation, Mathematical Centre Tracts 127, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar