scholarly journals A finitary version of the calculus of partial inductive definitions

2005 ◽  
pp. 89-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars -Henrik Eriksson
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Definitions ◽  
Partial Inductive Definitions

scholarly journals Partial inductive definitions

1991 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Hallnäs
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Definitions ◽  
Partial Inductive Definitions

Models of partial inductive definitions

1991 ◽  
pp. 365-384
Author(s):  
Lars Hallnäs
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Definitions ◽  
Partial Inductive Definitions

Partial inductive definitions as type-systems for λ-terms

1992 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-44
Author(s):  
Daniel Fredholm ◽  
Svetozar Serafimovski
Keyword(s):  
Type Systems ◽  
Inductive Definitions ◽  
Partial Inductive Definitions

scholarly journals Equivalents of the finitary non-deterministic inductive definitions

2019 ◽  
Vol 170 (10) ◽  
pp. 1256-1272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayana Hirata ◽  
Hajime Ishihara ◽  
Tatsuji Kawai ◽  
Takako Nemoto
Keyword(s):  
Inductive Definitions

μ-definable sets of integers

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 291-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Lubarsky
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Point ◽  
Free Variable ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inductive Definition ◽  
Natural Class ◽  
First Order ◽  
Inductive Definitions ◽  
Definable Sets ◽  
The Universe

Inductive definability has been studied for some time already. Nonetheless, there are some simple questions that seem to have been overlooked. In particular, there is the problem of the expressibility of the μ-calculus.The μ-calculus originated with Scott and DeBakker [SD] and was developed by Hitchcock and Park [HP], Park [Pa], Kozen [K], and others. It is a language for including inductive definitions with first-order logic. One can think of a formula in first-order logic (with one free variable) as defining a subset of the universe, the set of elements that make it true. Then “and” corresponds to intersection, “or” to union, and “not” to complementation. Viewing the standard connectives as operations on sets, there is no reason not to include one more: least fixed point.There are certain features of the μ-calculus coming from its being a language that make it interesting. A natural class of inductive definitions are those that are monotone: if X ⊃ Y then Γ (X) ⊃ Γ (Y) (where Γ (X) is the result of one application of the operator Γ to the set X). When studying monotonic operations in the context of a language, one would need a syntactic guarantor of monotonicity. This is provided by the notion of positivity. An occurrence of a set variable S is positive if that occurrence is in the scopes of exactly an even number of negations (the antecedent of a conditional counting as a negation). S is positive in a formula ϕ if each occurrence of S is positive. Intuitively, the formula can ask whether x ∊ S, but not whether x ∉ S. Such a ϕ can be considered an inductive definition: Γ (X) = {x ∣ ϕ(x), where the variable S is interpreted as X}. Moreover, this induction is monotone: as X gets bigger, ϕ can become only more true, by the positivity of S in ϕ. So in the μ-calculus, a formula is well formed by definition only if all of its inductive definitions are positive, in order to guarantee that all inductive definitions are monotone.

A TYPE-FREE THEORY OF HALF-MONOTONE INDUCTIVE DEFINITIONS

1995 ◽  
Vol 06 (03) ◽  
pp. 203-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
YUKIYOSHI KAMEYAMA
Keyword(s):  
Type Theory ◽  
Characteristic Point ◽  
Logical Theory ◽  
Inductive Definition ◽  
Program Extraction ◽  
First Order ◽  
Inductive Definitions ◽  
Free Theory ◽  
Program Proof ◽  
Definition Of

This paper studies an extension of inductive definitions in the context of a type-free theory. It is a kind of simultaneous inductive definition of two predicates where the defining formulas are monotone with respect to the first predicate, but not monotone with respect to the second predicate. We call this inductive definition half-monotone in analogy of Allen’s term half-positive. We can regard this definition as a variant of monotone inductive definitions by introducing a refined order between tuples of predicates. We give a general theory for half-monotone inductive definitions in a type-free first-order logic. We then give a realizability interpretation to our theory, and prove its soundness by extending Tatsuta’s technique. The mechanism of half-monotone inductive definitions is shown to be useful in interpreting many theories, including the Logical Theory of Constructions, and Martin-Löf’s Type Theory. We can also formalize the provability relation “a term p is a proof of a proposition P” naturally. As an application of this formalization, several techniques of program/proof-improvement can be formalized in our theory, and we can make use of this fact to develop programs in the paradigm of Constructive Programming. A characteristic point of our approach is that we can extract an optimization program since our theory enjoys the program extraction theorem.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document