DOCSLIB.ORG

Cumulative Learning in the Lambda Calculus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cumulative Learning in the Lambda Calculus Cumulative Learning in the Lambda Calculus Robert John Henderson Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computing Imperial College London May 2014 Copyright Declaration The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and is made available un- der a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives licence. Researchers are free to copy, distribute or transmit the thesis on the condition that they attribute it, that they do not use it for commercial purposes and that they do not alter, transform or build upon it. For any reuse or redistribution, researchers must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. Abstract I design a machine learning system capable of `cumulative learning', which means that it automatically acquires the knowledge necessary for solving harder problems through experience of solving easier ones. Working within the learning framework of inductive programming, I propose that the technique of abstrac- tion, familiar from software engineering, is a suitable mechanism for accumulat- ing knowledge. In abstraction, syntactic patterns in solutions to past problems are isolated as re-usable units and added to background knowledge. For the system's knowledge representation language, I argue that lambda calculus is a more suitable choice than first-order logic because lambda cal- culus supports abstraction readily. However, more mature and theoretically well-founded base inference techniques are available within first-order Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). Therefore, my approach is to adapt ILP inference techniques to lambda calculus. Central to ILP is the idea of `generality', and I show that a suitable concept of generality in lambda calculus arises from its standard denotational seman- tics. Consequently, notions of entailment, subsumption, refinement, and inverse deduction have direct analogues in the lambda calculus setting. I argue that the conventional `compression' measure used in ILP is inflexible in capturing prior assumptions, particularly in the context of an expanding background knowl- edge. Instead I introduce a non-parametric Bayesian prior over hypotheses and background knowledge. I then design an inductive inference algorithm for the lambda calculus setting based on refinement and proof-directed search. I give a formal proof of correctness of this algorithm. To enable automatic invention of abstractions, I design two algorithms. The first is a heuristic search that uses anti-unification to discovering opportunities for abstraction within a corpus of knowledge. I give a formal characterisation of its search space. The second algorithm performs inverse deduction in order to refactor knowledge in terms of an abstraction. I prove that this refactoring process is semantics-preserving. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Stephen Muggleton, without whose guid- ance and advice this project would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Dianhuan Lin, Jos´eSantos, Tristan Allwood, and Antonia Mayer for many helpful discussions. This project was supported by an EPSRC studentship. Declaration of Originality I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own, except where appro- priately stated and referenced. Contents 1 Introduction 4 1.1 The RUFINSKY System . 6 1.2 First-Order Logic vs. Lambda Calculus . 8 1.3 Contributions of this Project . 12 2 Background 13 2.1 Cumulative Learning . 13 2.2 Inductive Logic Programming . 18 2.2.1 Main Principles . 19 2.2.2 Inverse Deduction . 21 2.2.3 Refinement . 25 2.2.4 Multiple Refinement Points and Proof-Directed Search . 27 2.3 Other Inductive Programming Techniques . 31 2.3.1 Higher-order Background Knowledge as Declarative Bias . 31 2.3.2 Non-termination and Levin Search . 33 2.4 Abstraction Invention . 35 2.4.1 Anti-unification as a Means of Abstraction . 35 2.4.2 Predicate Invention in Inductive Logic Programming . 37 2.4.3 Limitations of Predicate Invention due to First-Order Logic 40 3 The Lambda Calculus Setting for Learning 43 3.1 Syntax . 43 3.1.1 Types . 43 3.1.2 Terms . 44 3.1.3 Declarations . 46 3.2 Denotational Semantics . 47 3.2.1 Types . 47 3.2.2 Terms . 48 3.3 Generality Orders . 50 3.4 Setting for Learning . 52 1 3.4.1 Partial terms represent sets of hypotheses . 53 4 Prior Probability Distributions 54 4.1 The Base Prior . 56 4.1.1 Some examples . 63 4.2 The Nonparametric Prior . 65 4.2.1 Worked example . 75 4.3 The Cumulative Learning Prior . 77 4.3.1 Worked example . 80 5 Refinement and RUFUS 84 5.1 Refinement . 84 5.1.1 Refinement operators and their properties . 85 5.1.2 The RUFUS refinement operator . 86 5.2 Proof-Directed Search . 88 5.2.1 The evaluator . 90 5.2.2 The runThreads algorithm . 91 5.2.3 The RUFUS search tree . 96 5.2.4 Guiding the search . 100 5.2.5 Worked example . 103 6 Anti-unification Search 105 6.1 Tree-Structured Terms . 106 6.2 The auSearch Specification . 108 6.3 The auSearch Algorithm . 111 6.4 The mnos Algorithm . 121 6.4.1 Gavril's maximum independent set algorithm . 121 6.4.2 Using Gavril's algorithm to find maximum non-overlapping subsets . 122 7 Abstraction Invention and KANDINSKY 125 7.1 The absInv Algorithm . 125 7.1.1 Worked example . 135 7.2 Proof of Correctness of absInv . 136 7.2.1 Preliminaries . 136 7.2.2 Eta-expansion . 139 7.2.3 Refactoring the master term . 139 8 Discussion 145 8.1 A `Proof-of-Concept' Demonstration of RUFINSKY . 145 8.2 How RUFINSKY could be Experimentally Evaluated . 151 2 8.3 Limitations of RUFINSKY's Cumulative Learning Mechanism . 154 8.4 Issues Raised about the Design of Inductive Programming Systems155 8.4.1 First order logic and lambda calculus . 155 8.4.2 Bayesian inference . 157 8.5 Related Work . 158 8.5.1 Search strategies . 158 8.5.2 Hybrid functional logic languages . 159 8.5.3 Program transformation . 159 8.5.4 Analogical reasoning . 160 9 Conclusions and Future Work 161 9.1 Summary of Thesis and Main Results . 161 9.2 Directions for Future Work . 162 9.3 Final Thoughts . 164 A Mathematical Conventions 165 A.1 Set Comprehension Notation . 165 B Proof of Lemma 6.53 167 Bibliography 170 3 Chapter 1 Introduction The aim of this PhD project is to explore one approach to the problem of cumulative learning [Michelucci and Oblinger, 2010] in artificial intelligence. In other words: how might a computer system accumulate knowledge or expertise over time, and thus incrementally improve its own ability to learn and solve problems? To illustrate what is meant by the term `cumulative learning', let us consider two examples. The first is that of a human learning a skill, for example, a child learning to speak and to understand their native language. The second is that of the scientific method, the process by which the human race as a whole increases its understanding of the nature of the universe and the laws governing it, by performing experiments so as to guide the development of increasingly accurate theories. Both of these processes, though they occur at very different scales, have two features in common: 1. Inductive inference is used to solve problems. 2. Progression to more difficult problems is made possible via the incremental accumulation of knowledge. For the purpose of this thesis, I define `cumulative learning' as any process that possesses these two features. In this PhD, the goal is to design and implement a machine learning al- gorithm capable of cumulative learning as defined by the two features above. Why pursue such a goal? There are two main reasons, one philosophical and the other practical. The philosophical motivation is that by implementing an algorithm that performs a process, we can improve our understanding of the na- ture of that process itself. In other words, if human learning and the scientific method are both instances of cumulative learning, then if one can construct a demonstrably effective algorithm that is also an instance of cumulative learning, it should provide some insight into how and why processes such as human and 4 scientific learning are able to operate. A more practical motivation for studying cumulative learning relates to the field of machine learning and data mining [Bishop, 2006; Kononenko and Kukar, 2007], the sub-field of artificial intelligence which may be defined as `the use of computer algorithms to discover patterns in data'. Machine learning currently has many industrial applications, to name a few: analysis of scientific data (particularly in biology) analysis of financial or stock market data medical diagnosis robot control (e.g. robots to help in disaster situations; automonous ve- hicles; robots for exploring other planets) information retrieval (e.g. internet search engines) automated translation handwriting and speech recognition artificial intelligence in computer games Despite these many applications, modern machine learning algorithms (for ex- ample: feedforward neural networks, Bayesian networks, or support vector ma- chines) are typically not capable of cumulative learning as defined by the two criteria given above. Most would only satisfy the first criterion, i.e. they use inductive inference to solve problems, often within a Bayesian framework. On the other hand, almost all machine learning algorithms currently in practical use lack any significant ability to `progress to more difficult problems via the incremental accumulation of knowledge'. This lack of an ability for the machine to learn cumulatively is a significant drawback, and it means that applying machine learning systems to real-world problems is currently a relatively labour-intensive and expensive activity. Cus- tom pattern-recognition algorithms are often implemented on a per-application basis, or otherwise data has to be heavily pre-processed in order to be suitable for input into stock algorithms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture Notes on the Lambda Calculus 2.4 Introduction to Β-Reduction
    2.2 Free and bound variables, α-equivalence. 8 2.3 Substitution ............................. 10 Lecture Notes on the Lambda Calculus 2.4 Introduction to β-reduction..................... 12 2.5 Formal definitions of β-reduction and β-equivalence . 13 Peter Selinger 3 Programming in the untyped lambda calculus 14 3.1 Booleans .............................. 14 Department of Mathematics and Statistics 3.2 Naturalnumbers........................... 15 Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada 3.3 Fixedpointsandrecursivefunctions . 17 3.4 Other data types: pairs, tuples, lists, trees, etc. ....... 20 Abstract This is a set of lecture notes that developed out of courses on the lambda 4 The Church-Rosser Theorem 22 calculus that I taught at the University of Ottawa in 2001 and at Dalhousie 4.1 Extensionality, η-equivalence, and η-reduction. 22 University in 2007 and 2013. Topics covered in these notes include the un- typed lambda calculus, the Church-Rosser theorem, combinatory algebras, 4.2 Statement of the Church-Rosser Theorem, and some consequences 23 the simply-typed lambda calculus, the Curry-Howard isomorphism, weak 4.3 Preliminary remarks on the proof of the Church-Rosser Theorem . 25 and strong normalization, polymorphism, type inference, denotational se- mantics, complete partial orders, and the language PCF. 4.4 ProofoftheChurch-RosserTheorem. 27 4.5 Exercises .............................. 32 Contents 5 Combinatory algebras 34 5.1 Applicativestructures. 34 1 Introduction 1 5.2 Combinatorycompleteness . 35 1.1 Extensionalvs. intensionalviewoffunctions . ... 1 5.3 Combinatoryalgebras. 37 1.2 Thelambdacalculus ........................ 2 5.4 The failure of soundnessforcombinatoryalgebras . .... 38 1.3 Untypedvs.typedlambda-calculi . 3 5.5 Lambdaalgebras .......................... 40 1.4 Lambdacalculusandcomputability . 4 5.6 Extensionalcombinatoryalgebras . 44 1.5 Connectionstocomputerscience .
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Types for Part II of the Computer Science Tripos
    Q Lecture Notes on Types for Part II of the Computer Science Tripos Prof. Andrew M. Pitts University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory c 2016 A. M. Pitts Contents Learning Guide i 1 Introduction 1 2 ML Polymorphism 6 2.1 Mini-ML type system . 6 2.2 Examples of type inference, by hand . 14 2.3 Principal type schemes . 16 2.4 A type inference algorithm . 18 3 Polymorphic Reference Types 25 3.1 The problem . 25 3.2 Restoring type soundness . 30 4 Polymorphic Lambda Calculus 33 4.1 From type schemes to polymorphic types . 33 4.2 The Polymorphic Lambda Calculus (PLC) type system . 37 4.3 PLC type inference . 42 4.4 Datatypes in PLC . 43 4.5 Existential types . 50 5 Dependent Types 53 5.1 Dependent functions . 53 5.2 Pure Type Systems . 57 5.3 System Fw .............................................. 63 6 Propositions as Types 67 6.1 Intuitionistic logics . 67 6.2 Curry-Howard correspondence . 69 6.3 Calculus of Constructions, lC ................................... 73 6.4 Inductive types . 76 7 Further Topics 81 References 84 Learning Guide These notes and slides are designed to accompany 12 lectures on type systems for Part II of the Cambridge University Computer Science Tripos. The course builds on the techniques intro- duced in the Part IB course on Semantics of Programming Languages for specifying type systems for programming languages and reasoning about their properties. The emphasis here is on type systems for functional languages and their connection to constructive logic. We pay par- ticular attention to the notion of parametric polymorphism (also known as generics), both because it has proven useful in practice and because its theory is quite subtle.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory and Lambda Calculus
    Category Theory and Lambda Calculus Mario Román García Trabajo Fin de Grado Doble Grado en Ingeniería Informática y Matemáticas Tutores Pedro A. García-Sánchez Manuel Bullejos Lorenzo Facultad de Ciencias E.T.S. Ingenierías Informática y de Telecomunicación Granada, a 18 de junio de 2018 Contents 1 Lambda calculus 13 1.1 Untyped λ-calculus . 13 1.1.1 Untyped λ-calculus . 14 1.1.2 Free and bound variables, substitution . 14 1.1.3 Alpha equivalence . 16 1.1.4 Beta reduction . 16 1.1.5 Eta reduction . 17 1.1.6 Confluence . 17 1.1.7 The Church-Rosser theorem . 18 1.1.8 Normalization . 20 1.1.9 Standardization and evaluation strategies . 21 1.1.10 SKI combinators . 22 1.1.11 Turing completeness . 24 1.2 Simply typed λ-calculus . 24 1.2.1 Simple types . 25 1.2.2 Typing rules for simply typed λ-calculus . 25 1.2.3 Curry-style types . 26 1.2.4 Unification and type inference . 27 1.2.5 Subject reduction and normalization . 29 1.3 The Curry-Howard correspondence . 31 1.3.1 Extending the simply typed λ-calculus . 31 1.3.2 Natural deduction . 32 1.3.3 Propositions as types . 34 1.4 Other type systems . 35 1.4.1 λ-cube..................................... 35 2 Mikrokosmos 38 2.1 Implementation of λ-expressions . 38 2.1.1 The Haskell programming language . 38 2.1.2 De Bruijn indexes . 40 2.1.3 Substitution . 41 2.1.4 De Bruijn-terms and λ-terms . 42 2.1.5 Evaluation .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Simply-Typed Lambda Calculus
    CS 4110 – Programming Languages and Logics Lecture #18: Simply Typed λ-calculus A type is a collection of computational entities that share some common property. For example, the type int represents all expressions that evaluate to an integer, and the type int ! int represents all functions from integers to integers. The Pascal subrange type [1..100] represents all integers between 1 and 100. You can see types as a static approximation of the dynamic behaviors of terms and programs. Type systems are a lightweight formal method for reasoning about behavior of a program. Uses of type systems include: naming and organizing useful concepts; providing information (to the compiler or programmer) about data manipulated by a program; and ensuring that the run-time behavior of programs meet certain criteria. In this lecture, we’ll consider a type system for the lambda calculus that ensures that values are used correctly; for example, that a program never tries to add an integer to a function. The resulting language (lambda calculus plus the type system) is called the simply-typed lambda calculus (STLC). 1 Simply-typed lambda calculus The syntax of the simply-typed lambda calculus is similar to that of untyped lambda calculus, with the exception of abstractions. Since abstractions define functions tht take an argument, in the simply-typed lambda calculus, we explicitly state what the type of the argument is. That is, in an abstraction λx : τ: e, the τ is the expected type of the argument. The syntax of the simply-typed lambda calculus is as follows. It includes integer literals n, addition e1 + e2, and the unit value ¹º.
    [Show full text]
  • Lambda-Calculus Types and Models
    Jean-Louis Krivine LAMBDA-CALCULUS TYPES AND MODELS Translated from french by René Cori To my daughter Contents Introduction5 1 Substitution and beta-conversion7 Simple substitution ..............................8 Alpha-equivalence and substitution ..................... 12 Beta-conversion ................................ 18 Eta-conversion ................................. 24 2 Representation of recursive functions 29 Head normal forms .............................. 29 Representable functions ............................ 31 Fixed point combinators ........................... 34 The second fixed point theorem ....................... 37 3 Intersection type systems 41 System D­ ................................... 41 System D .................................... 50 Typings for normal terms ........................... 54 4 Normalization and standardization 61 Typings for normalizable terms ........................ 61 Strong normalization ............................. 68 ¯I-reduction ................................. 70 The ¸I-calculus ................................ 72 ¯´-reduction ................................. 74 The finite developments theorem ....................... 77 The standardization theorem ......................... 81 5 The Böhm theorem 87 3 4 CONTENTS 6 Combinatory logic 95 Combinatory algebras ............................. 95 Extensionality axioms ............................. 98 Curry’s equations ............................... 101 Translation of ¸-calculus ........................... 105 7 Models of lambda-calculus 111 Functional
    [Show full text]
  • The Lambda Calculus Bharat Jayaraman Department of Computer Science and Engineering University at Buffalo (SUNY) January 2010
    The Lambda Calculus Bharat Jayaraman Department of Computer Science and Engineering University at Buffalo (SUNY) January 2010 The lambda-calculus is of fundamental importance in the study of programming languages. It was founded by Alonzo Church in the 1930s well before programming languages or even electronic computers were invented. Church's thesis is that the computable functions are precisely those that are definable in the lambda-calculus. This is quite amazing, since the entire syntax of the lambda-calculus can be defined in just one line: T ::= V j λV:T j (TT ) The syntactic category T defines the set of well-formed expressions of the lambda-calculus, also referred to as lambda-terms. The syntactic category V stands for a variable; λV:T is called an abstraction, and (TT ) is called an application. We will examine these terms in more detail a little later, but, at the outset, it is remarkable that the lambda-calculus is capable of defining recursive functions even though there is no provision for writing recursive definitions. Indeed, there is no provision for writing named procedures or functions as we know them in conventional languages. Also absent are other familiar programming constructs such as control and data structures. We will therefore examine how the lambda-calculus can encode such constructs, and thereby gain some insight into the power of this little language. In the field of programming languages, John McCarthy was probably the first to rec- ognize the importance of the lambda-calculus, which inspired him in the 1950s to develop the Lisp programming language.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Notes on the Category Theoretic Semantics of Simply Typed Lambda Calculus
    University of Cambridge 2017 MPhil ACS / CST Part III Category Theory and Logic (L108) Brief Notes on the Category Theoretic Semantics of Simply Typed Lambda Calculus Andrew Pitts Notation: comma-separated snoc lists When presenting logical systems and type theories, it is common to write finite lists of things using a comma to indicate the cons-operation and with the head of the list at the right. With this convention there is no common notation for the empty list; we will use the symbol “”. Thus ML-style list notation nil a :: nil b :: a :: nil etc becomes , a , a, b etc For non-empty lists, it is very common to leave the initial part “,” of the above notation implicit, for example just writing a, b instead of , a, b. Write X∗ for the set of such finite lists with elements from the set X. 1 Syntax of the simply typed l-calculus Fix a countably infinite set V whose elements are called variables and are typically written x, y, z,... The simple types (with product types) A over a set Gnd of ground types are given by the following grammar, where G ranges over Gnd: A ::= G j unit j A x A j A -> A Write ST(Gnd) for the set of simple types over Gnd. The syntax trees t of the simply typed l-calculus (STLC) over Gnd with constants drawn from a set Con are given by the following grammar, where c ranges over Con, x over V and A over ST(Gnd): t ::= c j x j () j (t , t) j fst t j snd t j lx : A.
    [Show full text]
  • Simply-Typed Lambda Calculus Static Semantics of F1 •Syntax: Notice :Τ • the Typing Judgment Λ Τ Terms E ::= X | X
    Homework Five Is Alive Simply-Typed • Ocaml now installed on dept Lambda Calculus linux/solaris machines in /usr/cs (e.g., /usr/cs/bin/ocamlc) • There will be no Number Six #1 #2 Back to School Lecture Schedule •Thu Oct 13 –Today • What is operational semantics? When would • Tue Oct 14 – Monomorphic Type Systems you use contextual (small-step) semantics? • Thu Oct 12 – Exceptions, Continuations, Rec Types • What is denotational semantics? • Tue Oct 17 – Subtyping – Homework 5 Due • What is axiomatic semantics? What is a •Thu Oct 19 –No Class verification condition? •Tue Oct 24 –2nd Order Types | Dependent Types – Double Lecture – Food? – Project Status Update Due •Thu Oct 26 –No Class • Tue Oct 31 – Theorem Proving, Proof Checking #3 #4 Today’s (Short?) Cunning Plan Why Typed Languages? • Type System Overview • Development • First-Order Type Systems – Type checking catches early many mistakes •Typing Rules – Reduced debugging time •Typing Derivations – Typed signatures are a powerful basis for design – Typed signatures enable separate compilation • Type Safety • Maintenance – Types act as checked specifications – Types can enforce abstraction •Execution – Static checking reduces the need for dynamic checking – Safe languages are easier to analyze statically • the compiler can generate better code #5 #6 1 Why Not Typed Languages? Safe Languages • There are typed languages that are not safe • Static type checking imposes constraints on the (“weakly typed languages”) programmer – Some valid programs might be rejected • All safe languages use types (static or dynamic) – But often they can be made well-typed easily Typed Untyped – Hard to step outside the language (e.g. OO programming Static Dynamic in a non-OO language, but cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Typed Lambda Calculus
    Typed Lambda Calculus Chapter 9 Benjamin Pierce Types and Programming Languages Call-by-value Operational Semantics t ::= terms v ::= values x variable x. t abstraction values x. t abstraction t t application ( x. t12) v2 [x v2] t12 (E-AppAbs) t1 t’1 (E-APPL1) t1 t2 t’1 t2 t2 t’2 (E-APPL2) v1 t2 v1 t’2 Consistency of Function Application • Prevent runtime errors during evaluation • Reject inconsistent terms • What does ‘x x’ mean? • Cannot be always enforced – if <tricky computation> then true else (x. x) A Naïve Attempt • Add function type • Type rule x. t : – x. x : – If true then (x. x) else (x. y y) : • Too Coarse Simple Types T ::= types Bool type of Booleans T T type of functions T1 T2 T3 = T1 ( T2 T3) Explicit vs. Implicit Types • How to define the type of abstractions? – Explicit: defined by the programmer t ::= Type terms x variable x: T. t abstraction t t application – Implicit: Inferred by analyzing the body • The type checking problem: Determine if typed term is well typed • The type inference problem: Determine if there exists a type for (an untyped) term which makes it well typed Simple Typed Lambda Calculus t ::= terms x variable x: T. t abstraction t t application T::= types T T types of functions Typing Function Declarations x : T t : T 1 2 2 (T-ABS) (x : T1. t2 ): T1 T2 A typing context maps free variables into types , x : T t : T 1 2 2 (T-ABS) ( x : T1 . t2 ): T1 T2 Typing Free Variables x : T (T-VAR) x : T Typing Function Applications t1 : T11 T12 t2 : T11 (T-APP) t1 t2 : T12 Typing Conditionals t1 : Bool t2 : T t3 : T (T-IF) if t1 then t2 else t3 : T If true then (x: Bool.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Type Theory
    Introduction to Type Theory Erik Barendsen version November 2005 selected from: Basic Course Type Theory Dutch Graduate School in Logic, June 1996 lecturers: Erik Barendsen (KUN/UU), Herman Geuvers (TUE) 1. Introduction In typing systems, types are assigned to objects (in some context). This leads to typing statements of the form a : τ, where a is an object and τ a type. Traditionally, there are two views on typing: the computational and the logical one. They differ in the interpretation of typing statements. In the computational setting, a is regarded as a program or algorithm, and τ as a specification of a (in some formalism). This gives a notion of partial correctness, namely well-typedness of programs. From the logical point of view, τ is a formula, and a is considered to be a proof of τ. Various logical systems have a type theoretic interpretation. This branch of type theory is related to proof theory because the constructive or algorithmic content of proofs plays an important role. The result is a realiz- ability interpretation: provability in the logical systems implies the existence of an ‘inhabitant’ in the corresponding type system. Church versus Curry Typing One can distinguish two different styles in typing, usually called after their inventors A. Church and H.B. Curry. The approach `ala Church assembles typed objects from typed components; i.e., the objects are constructed together with their types. We use type anno- tations to indicate the types of basic objects: if 0 denotes the type of natural numbers, then λx:0.x denotes the identity function on N, having type 0→0.
    [Show full text]
  • Simply Typed Lambda Calculus Most Programming Languages Used for Serious Software Development Are Typed Languages
    06-02552 Princ. of Progr. Languages (and “Extended”) The University of Birmingham Spring Semester 2019-20 School of Computer Science c Uday Reddy2019-20 Handout 4: Simply Typed Lambda Calculus Most programming languages used for serious software development are typed languages. The reason for their popularity is that types allow us to check mechanically whether we are plugging together compatible pieces of programs. When we plug together incompatible pieces either due to lack of understanding, confusion, or misunderstandings, we end up constructing programs that do not function correctly. Type checking allows us to catch such problems early and leads to more reliable software. In Mathematics, typed languages have been developed because their untyped variants have led to paradoxes. The most famous of them is the Russell’s paradox. If we don’t distinguish between the type of elements and the type of sets of such elements, then the language allows us to express “the set of all sets” which cannot be shown to exist or not exist. However, the typed languages are constraining. So, there is ever a temptation to devise untyped languages. Alonzo Church first developed a typed version of the lambda calculus which he called the “simple theory of types”. He later generalised it to the untyped lambda calculus in order to create a more expressive language. However, the untyped lambda calculus, if used as the foundation for logic, leads one back to paradoxes. Despite paradoxes, the untyped calculus was useful for some foundational purposes. In his Master’s thesis, Turing proved that the untyped lambda calculus and (what we now call) “Turing machines” were equally expressive.
    [Show full text]
  • Simply Easy! (An Implementation of a Dependently Typed Lambda
    Simply Easy! An Implementation of a Dependently Typed Lambda Calculus Andres Loh¨ Conor McBride Wouter Swierstra University of Bonn University of Nottingham [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract less than 150 lines of Haskell code, and can be generated directly We present an implementation in Haskell of a dependently-typed from this paper’s sources. lambda calculus that can be used as the core of a programming The full power of dependent types can only show if we add language. We show that a dependently-typed lambda calculus is no actual data types to the base calculus. Hence, we demonstrate in more difficult to implement than other typed lambda calculi. In fact, Section 4 how to extend our language with natural numbers and our implementation is almost as easy as an implementation of the vectors. More data types can be added using the principles ex- simply typed lambda calculus, which we emphasize by discussing plained in this section. Using the added data types, we write a few the modifications necessary to go from one to the other. We explain example programs that make use of dependent types, such as a vec- how to add data types and write simple programs in the core tor append operation that keeps track of the length of the vectors. language, and discuss the steps necessary to build a full-fledged Programming in λ5 directly is tedious due to the spartan nature programming language on top of our simple core. of the core calculus. In Section 5, we therefore sketch how to proceed if we want to construct a real programming language on top of our dependently-typed core.
    [Show full text]