[TYPES] Is naive freshness adequate to avoid capture?
Philip Wadler
wadler at inf.ed.ac.uk
Fri Apr 27 07:14:07 EDT 2012
Say that a lambda term is 'fresh' if each lambda abstraction binds a
distinct variable. For instance, (\x.(\y.\z.y)x) is fresh, but
(\x.(\y.\x.y)x) is not.
Consider lambda terms without the alpha rule, where capture avoiding
substitution is a partial function. For instance, [x/y](\z.y) is
defined, but [x/y](\x.y) is undefined, because the substitution would
result in capture.
Consider a sequence of beta reductions where no alpha reduction is
allowed. In our first example, this terminates in a normal form:
(\x.(\y.\z.y)x) --> \x.\z.x
In our second example, we get stuck.
(\x.(\y.\x.y)x) -/->
Attempting to beta reduce the redex would result in capture.
Starting with a fresh term and performing beta reductions but no alpha
reductions, are there reduction sequences which get stuck? I suspect
the answer is yes, but I am having difficulty locating a
counter-example in the literature or creating one on my own.
Answers gratefully received. Yours, -- P
--
.\ Philip Wadler, Professor of Theoretical Computer Science
./\ School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
/ \ http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
More information about the Types-list
mailing list