A terminating and confluent linear lambda calculus

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4098 LNCS, Issue , 2006, Pages 166-180

  Ohta, Yo ^a   Hasegawa, Masahito ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; DECISION TABLES; DIFFERENTIATION (CALCULUS); FORMAL LOGIC; INTEGRAL EQUATIONS; THEOREM PROVING;

DECISION METHODS; EQUATIONAL THEORY; LINEAR LAMBDA CALCULUS; REWRITING SYSTEMS;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES;

EID: 33749390298     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11805618_13     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Barber, A. (1997) Linear Type Theories, Semantics and Action Calculi. PhD Thesis ECS-LFCS-97-371, University of Edinburgh.
2. Barber, A. and Plotkin, G. (1997) Dual intuitionistic linear logic. Manuscript. An earlier version available as Technical Report ECS-LFCS-96-347, LFCS, University of Edinburgh.
3. Barr, M. (1991) *-autonomous categories and linear logic. Math. Struct. Comp. Sci. 1, 159-178.
4. Bierman, G.M. (1995) What is a categorical model of intuitionistic linear logic? In Proc. Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, Springer Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 902, pp. 78-93.
5. Crole, R. (1993) Categories for Types. Cambridge University Press.
6. Ghani, N. (1996) Adjoint rewriting and the !-type constructor. Manuscript.
7. Girard, J.-Y. (1987) Linear logic. Theoret. Comp. Sci. 50, 1-102.
8. Hasegawa, M. (2000) Girard translation and logical predicates. J. Funct. Programming 10(1), 77-89.
9. Hasegawa, M. (2002) Linearly used effects: monadic and CPS transformations into the linear lambda calculus. In Proc. 6th Functional and Logic Programming, Springer Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 2441, pp. 67-182.
10. Hasegawa, M. (2004) Semantics of linear continuation-passing in call-by-name. In Proc. 7th Functional and Logic Programming, Springer Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 2998, pp. 229-243.
11. Hasegawa, M. (2005) Classical linear logic of implications. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 15(2), 323-342.
12. Huet, G. (1980) Confluent reductions; abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems. J. ACM 27(4), 797-821.
13. Lambek, J. and Scott, P. (1986) Introduction to Higher-order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press.
14. Lindley, S. and Stark, I. (2005) Reducibility and TT-lifting for computation types. In Proc. Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, Springer Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 3461, pp. 262-277.
15. Maraist, J., Odersky, M., Turner, D.N. and Wadler, P. (1995) Call-by-name, call-by-value, call-by-need and the linear lambda calculus. In Proc. 11th Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 1, pp. 370-392.
16. Mellies, P.-A. (2003) Categorical models of linear logic revisited. To appear in Theoret. Comp. Sci.
17. Moggi, E. (1989) Computational lambda-calculus and monads. In Proc. 4th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 14-23; a different version available as Technical Report ECS-LFCS-88-86, University of Edinburgh, 1988.
18. Sabry, A. and Wadler, P. (1997) A reflection on call-by-value. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 19(6), 916-941.
19. Seely, R.A.G. (1989) Linear logic, *-autonomous categories and cofree coalgebras. In Categories in Computer Science, AMS Contemp. Math. 92, pp. 371-389.
20. Terese (2003) Term Rewriting Systems. Cambridge University Press.