Thinning lemma in simply typed lambda calculus












0












$begingroup$


From "Type Theory and Formal Proof" by Rob Nederpelt and Herman Geuvers:




Definition 2.4.2



(1) A statement is of the form $M : alpha$, where $M in
Lambda_{mathbb{T}}$
and $sigma in mathbb{T}$. In such a
statement, $M$ is called the subject and $alpha$ the type.



(2) A declaration is a statement with a variable as subject.



(3) A context is a list of declarations with different subjects.



Definition 2.4.5 (Derivation rules for $lambda to$)



(var) $Gamma vdash x : alpha$ if $x : alpha in Gamma$



(appl) $Gamma vdash M : alpha to tau quad Gamma vdash N
: alpha implies Gamma vdash M N : tau$



(abst) $Gamma, x : alpha vdash M : tau implies Gamma vdash
lambda x : alpha . M : alpha to tau$



Definition 2.10.1



(2) Context $Gamma'$ is a subcontext of context $Gamma$, or $Gamma'
subseteq Gamma$
, if all declarations occurring in $Gamma'$ also
occur in $Gamma$, in the same order.



Lemma 2.10.5



(1) (Thinning) Let $Gamma'$ and $Gamma''$ be contexts such that
$Gamma' subseteq Gamma''$. If $Gamma' vdash M : alpha$, then
also $Gamma'' vdash M : alpha$.




Note: I replaced the horizontal bar between the premisses and conclusion in the derivation rules with $implies$ since I could not get the bar to typeset as intended.



Suppose I assign the following in Lemma 2.10.5:



$Gamma' = y : B$



$Gamma'' = x : C, y : B$



$M = lambda x : A . y$



$alpha = A to B$



Then



$Gamma' vdash M : alpha = y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$



$Gamma'' vdash M : alpha = x : C, y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$.



For a derivation of the first I have:



(i) $y : B, x : A vdash y : B$ (var)



(ii) $y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$ (abst on i)



I am unable to find a derivation for the second as the lemma implies. Is there a derivation, or am I missing something else?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    From "Type Theory and Formal Proof" by Rob Nederpelt and Herman Geuvers:




    Definition 2.4.2



    (1) A statement is of the form $M : alpha$, where $M in
    Lambda_{mathbb{T}}$
    and $sigma in mathbb{T}$. In such a
    statement, $M$ is called the subject and $alpha$ the type.



    (2) A declaration is a statement with a variable as subject.



    (3) A context is a list of declarations with different subjects.



    Definition 2.4.5 (Derivation rules for $lambda to$)



    (var) $Gamma vdash x : alpha$ if $x : alpha in Gamma$



    (appl) $Gamma vdash M : alpha to tau quad Gamma vdash N
    : alpha implies Gamma vdash M N : tau$



    (abst) $Gamma, x : alpha vdash M : tau implies Gamma vdash
    lambda x : alpha . M : alpha to tau$



    Definition 2.10.1



    (2) Context $Gamma'$ is a subcontext of context $Gamma$, or $Gamma'
    subseteq Gamma$
    , if all declarations occurring in $Gamma'$ also
    occur in $Gamma$, in the same order.



    Lemma 2.10.5



    (1) (Thinning) Let $Gamma'$ and $Gamma''$ be contexts such that
    $Gamma' subseteq Gamma''$. If $Gamma' vdash M : alpha$, then
    also $Gamma'' vdash M : alpha$.




    Note: I replaced the horizontal bar between the premisses and conclusion in the derivation rules with $implies$ since I could not get the bar to typeset as intended.



    Suppose I assign the following in Lemma 2.10.5:



    $Gamma' = y : B$



    $Gamma'' = x : C, y : B$



    $M = lambda x : A . y$



    $alpha = A to B$



    Then



    $Gamma' vdash M : alpha = y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$



    $Gamma'' vdash M : alpha = x : C, y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$.



    For a derivation of the first I have:



    (i) $y : B, x : A vdash y : B$ (var)



    (ii) $y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$ (abst on i)



    I am unable to find a derivation for the second as the lemma implies. Is there a derivation, or am I missing something else?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      From "Type Theory and Formal Proof" by Rob Nederpelt and Herman Geuvers:




      Definition 2.4.2



      (1) A statement is of the form $M : alpha$, where $M in
      Lambda_{mathbb{T}}$
      and $sigma in mathbb{T}$. In such a
      statement, $M$ is called the subject and $alpha$ the type.



      (2) A declaration is a statement with a variable as subject.



      (3) A context is a list of declarations with different subjects.



      Definition 2.4.5 (Derivation rules for $lambda to$)



      (var) $Gamma vdash x : alpha$ if $x : alpha in Gamma$



      (appl) $Gamma vdash M : alpha to tau quad Gamma vdash N
      : alpha implies Gamma vdash M N : tau$



      (abst) $Gamma, x : alpha vdash M : tau implies Gamma vdash
      lambda x : alpha . M : alpha to tau$



      Definition 2.10.1



      (2) Context $Gamma'$ is a subcontext of context $Gamma$, or $Gamma'
      subseteq Gamma$
      , if all declarations occurring in $Gamma'$ also
      occur in $Gamma$, in the same order.



      Lemma 2.10.5



      (1) (Thinning) Let $Gamma'$ and $Gamma''$ be contexts such that
      $Gamma' subseteq Gamma''$. If $Gamma' vdash M : alpha$, then
      also $Gamma'' vdash M : alpha$.




      Note: I replaced the horizontal bar between the premisses and conclusion in the derivation rules with $implies$ since I could not get the bar to typeset as intended.



      Suppose I assign the following in Lemma 2.10.5:



      $Gamma' = y : B$



      $Gamma'' = x : C, y : B$



      $M = lambda x : A . y$



      $alpha = A to B$



      Then



      $Gamma' vdash M : alpha = y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$



      $Gamma'' vdash M : alpha = x : C, y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$.



      For a derivation of the first I have:



      (i) $y : B, x : A vdash y : B$ (var)



      (ii) $y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$ (abst on i)



      I am unable to find a derivation for the second as the lemma implies. Is there a derivation, or am I missing something else?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      From "Type Theory and Formal Proof" by Rob Nederpelt and Herman Geuvers:




      Definition 2.4.2



      (1) A statement is of the form $M : alpha$, where $M in
      Lambda_{mathbb{T}}$
      and $sigma in mathbb{T}$. In such a
      statement, $M$ is called the subject and $alpha$ the type.



      (2) A declaration is a statement with a variable as subject.



      (3) A context is a list of declarations with different subjects.



      Definition 2.4.5 (Derivation rules for $lambda to$)



      (var) $Gamma vdash x : alpha$ if $x : alpha in Gamma$



      (appl) $Gamma vdash M : alpha to tau quad Gamma vdash N
      : alpha implies Gamma vdash M N : tau$



      (abst) $Gamma, x : alpha vdash M : tau implies Gamma vdash
      lambda x : alpha . M : alpha to tau$



      Definition 2.10.1



      (2) Context $Gamma'$ is a subcontext of context $Gamma$, or $Gamma'
      subseteq Gamma$
      , if all declarations occurring in $Gamma'$ also
      occur in $Gamma$, in the same order.



      Lemma 2.10.5



      (1) (Thinning) Let $Gamma'$ and $Gamma''$ be contexts such that
      $Gamma' subseteq Gamma''$. If $Gamma' vdash M : alpha$, then
      also $Gamma'' vdash M : alpha$.




      Note: I replaced the horizontal bar between the premisses and conclusion in the derivation rules with $implies$ since I could not get the bar to typeset as intended.



      Suppose I assign the following in Lemma 2.10.5:



      $Gamma' = y : B$



      $Gamma'' = x : C, y : B$



      $M = lambda x : A . y$



      $alpha = A to B$



      Then



      $Gamma' vdash M : alpha = y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$



      $Gamma'' vdash M : alpha = x : C, y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$.



      For a derivation of the first I have:



      (i) $y : B, x : A vdash y : B$ (var)



      (ii) $y : B vdash lambda x : A . y : A to B$ (abst on i)



      I am unable to find a derivation for the second as the lemma implies. Is there a derivation, or am I missing something else?







      lambda-calculus






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 14 at 4:13









      user695931user695931

      16811




      16811






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          This may just be a consequence of Convention 1.7.2 From now on, we identify α-convertible λ-terms.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3072837%2fthinning-lemma-in-simply-typed-lambda-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            This may just be a consequence of Convention 1.7.2 From now on, we identify α-convertible λ-terms.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              This may just be a consequence of Convention 1.7.2 From now on, we identify α-convertible λ-terms.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                This may just be a consequence of Convention 1.7.2 From now on, we identify α-convertible λ-terms.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                This may just be a consequence of Convention 1.7.2 From now on, we identify α-convertible λ-terms.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 14 at 4:29









                user695931user695931

                16811




                16811






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3072837%2fthinning-lemma-in-simply-typed-lambda-calculus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Mario Kart Wii

                    The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

                    What does “Dominus providebit” mean?