COMBINATORY

REDUCTION
COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS
COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS

PROEFSCHRIFT

TER VERKRIJGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN

DOCTOR IN DE WISKUNDE EN NATUURWETENSCHAPPEN
AAN DE RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT TE UTRECHT,
OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS
PROF.DR. A. VERHOEFF ,
VOLGENS BESLUIT VAN HET COLLEGE VAN DECANEN
IN HET OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN
OP WOENSDAG 11 JUNI 1980 DES NAMIDDAGS TE 2.45 UUR

DOOR

JAN WILLEM KLOP

GEBOREN OP 19 DECEMBER 1945

TE GORINCHEM

1980
MATHEMATISCH CENTRUM , AMSTERDAM
PROMOTOR: PROF.DR. D. VAN DALEN

Dit proefschrift kwam tot stand mede onder leiding van Dr. H.P. BARENDREGT.
vooh mZjn oudesu
vo on. Ma/oLanm m Maa/itje.
 l
CONTENTS

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ill

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY V

INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE SECTIONS xill

CHAPTER I. XB-CALCULUS AND DEFINABLE EXTENSIONS 1

1. Lambda terms 1
2. Combinators 11
3. Labels and descendants 17
4. Finite Developments 30
5. Abstract Reduction Systems 44
6. The Church-Rosser Theorem 57
7. Church's Theorem 72
8. Strong Normalization of labeled X-calculi (via
Al-calculus) 75
9. Standardization 84
10. Standardization and equivalence of reductions 93
11. Normalization 113
12. Cofinal reductions 115

CHAPTER II. REGULAR COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS 119

1. Combinatory Reduction Systems 120
2. Descendants and labels for combinatory reductions 137
3. The Church-Rosser Theorem for regular combinatory reductions 141
4. Reductions with memory 151
5. Non-erasing reductions 164
6. Decreasing labelings and Strong Normalization 175

CHAPTER III. IRREGULAR COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS 195

1. Counterexamples to the Church-Rosser property 195
2. Intermezzo. An intuitive explanation via Bohm trees 216
3. Additional properties of A(CL) © V , V , V , SP 220
h s k
4. Some positive CR-results for non-left-linear CRS's 232
5. The 'black box' lemma 240
11

CHAPTER IV. XBn-CALCULUS 249

1. The Church-Rosser Theorem for XBri-calculus 249
2. Residuals 252
3. Tracing in diagrams 257
4. Standardization of Bn-reductions 263
5. The Normalization Theorem for X3r|-calculus 279
6. Cofinal 3ri-reductions 293

REFERENCES 298

LIST OF NOTATIONS 304

INDEX 313

SAMENVATTING 318

CURRICULUM VITAE 323

 Ill

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis was written while I was employed half be the Mathematical
Institute and half by the 'Centrale Interfaculteit' of the University of
Utrecht, from 1975 to 1979. It was a privilege to be a promovendus in the
Logic department of Professor Dirk van Dalen, and those years will remain
a dear memory because of the enjoyable and stimulating working conditions
he created there. Apart from that, it is my pleasure to express my deep
gratitude to him for the general guidance of my work and for the numerous
detailed improvements that he suggested in an earlier draft of the text.
Henk Barendregt taught me the subject of this thesis and supervised
its development. I am very grateful to him for the close co-operation that
we often had, and for his admirable enthousiasm. At almost every moment,
day or night, he was willing to discuss X-calculus and to listen to my
proofs, including a sequence of false ones. I owe him a great debt.
In my pre-doctoral year (f74— *75) Henk Barendregt, Jan Bergstra (now
at the University of Leiden), Henri Volken (then at the E.T.H. Zurich) and
I had a research-seminar on X-calculus which was of special value to me,
since it provided a basis for the present work and since it was my first
encounter with mathematical research. I want to thank my fellow-members of
this seminar, and Jan Bergstra moreover for some joint work afterwards which
is related to this thesis.
I also want to thank my 'X-calculus colleagues' Roger Hindley, Jean-
Jacques Levy and Gerd Mitschke, for several useful discussions and encour­
aging correspondence; and Jeff Zucker and David Isles for their stimulating
interest. And my room-mate at the Mathematical Institute, Albert Visser,
for numerous discussions on (e.g.) X-calculus.
I am very grateful to Professor Baayen who accepted this thesis for
publication as EMC Tract, and to Mr. Barning and Mr. Zwarst of the Mathe­
matical Centre in Amsterdam; the latter for the multiplication of this
thesis. I am especially thankful to Mrs. Ria Riechelmann who typed the
whole manuscript with impressive speed and skill.
Finally, I thank my wife Marianne (even though she does not want it);
without her the work on this thesis would neither have been started nor
have been finished.
 V

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Title of this thesis. In the present work we are exclusively concerned with
the study of syntactical properties of A-calculus (A, for short), Combina­
tory Logic (CL), Recursive Program Schemes, and in general, Term Rewriting
Systems with bound variables; especially those syntactical properties which
concern reductions. Hence the title of this thesis? Combinatory Reduction
Systems (CRS's) is the name by which we refer to Term Rewriting Systems
plus bound variables. The word 'combinatory' seems justified to us since it
captures the essential feature of these reduction systems: subterms in a
CRS-term are manipulated in a 'combinatory way'.

Motivation. There is ample motivation for the (in our case syntactical) in­
vestigation of CRS's. The importance of the paradigms of CRS's, A and CL,
is well-known in Mathematical Logic (see also our historical remarks below).
Moreover, A and CL play an important role in the semantics of programming
languages; we refer to the work of Scott. One can consider A-calculus as the
prototype of a programming language; see MORRIS [68]. Furthermore, in theo­
retical Computer Science, certain simple CRS's, Recursive Program Schemes,
and more general, CRS's without substitution known as Term Rewriting Systems
are studied. Then there is the AUTOMATH-project of de Bruijn, at the border­
line of Computer Science and Foundations of Mathematics, which has as one
of its aims the computer verification of mathematical proofs. Here A-cal­
culus plays an important role, too; we refer to the recent work of
VAN DAALEN [80].
In Proof Theory one is often interested in certain extensions of
(typed) A-calculus, such as AT © recursor R, iterator J, Pairing operators,
etc. All these extensions are covered by the concept of a CRS. It is inter­
esting that one encounters in Proof Theory also CRS's which have a variable­
binding mechanism other than the usual one in A-calculus: namely, in the
normalization of Natural Deduction proofs. Finally, let us mention that
there are recent foundational studies by Feferman in which certain syntac­
tical properties of extensions of A-calculus are relevant.
We conclude that CRS's arise in a variety of fields and that the study
of their syntactical properties is worth-wile.
vi

Restriction to syntax. Our restriction to syntactical investigations, as

opposed to semantical considerations, is born solely from limitation and
is not by principle. Recently, D. Scott, G. Plotkin and others have origi­
nated a model theory for the A-calculus and extensions thereof; by means of
this one can obtain in a fast and elegant way some results which require
much labour in a syntactical treatment. E.g. the consistency of Ari © Sur­
jective Pairing.
We do not feel however that the availability of the powerful modeltheo-
retic methods lessens the usefullness of Church-Rosser proofs and related
syntactical theorems. The reason is the well-known fact that the (sometimes)
tedious work of syntactical investigations yields longer proofs, but also
more information. We mention a typical example above: model theory yields a
beautiful proof of the consistency of Ari © S.P., but the much longer proof
which will appear in DE VRIJER t 80] yields not only consistency, but also
conservativity of An © S.P. over An. (Another reason is that the models of
Plotkin and Scott, only bear on extensions of A-calculus and not on several
other Combinatory Reduction Systems.)
Although we have occasionally allowed ourselves a digression for com­
pleteness sake, this thesis certainly does not aim to give a survey of the
syntax of A-calculus and extensions. For such a survey we refer to
Barendregt's forthcoming monograph 1The lambda calculus, its syntax and
semantics'.

Some history. We will now give a short sketch of the history of the subject;
for a more extensive historical introduction we refer to the introduction
in BARENDREGT [80], to the short historical survey in SCOTT [79] and to the
many historical comments in CURRY-FEYS [58].
Combinatory Logic starts in 1924 with SCHONFINKEL [24]: 'Uber die Bau-
steine der Mathematischen Logik'. Schonfinkel tries to reduce the num­
ber of primitive concepts in (higher order predicate) logic; in particular,
his aim is to eliminate bound variables. His motivation: asserting e.g.
that Vp,q -fp v (pVq) for propositions, does not say anything about p,q but
only about -7 and v. To obtain his aim he introduces 'combinators' I,K,S, B , C ,
'defined' by lx = x, Kxy = x, Sxyz = xz(yz), Cxyz = xzy and Bxyz = x(yz).
(5 and K alone are sufficient, as Schonfinkel remarks.) Schonfinkel then
proves in an informal way that every formula A(x^,...,x^), with free vari­
ables c {x^,...,x }, in higher order predicate logic (where quantification
over predicates and over predicates of predicates, and so on, is allowed)
 vii

can be rewritten as a term where M is built by application from

the combinators and an 'incompatibility predicate* U defined by
UPQ = VxflP(x) v 1Q( x )).
Example: Let P(g,y,f) be the formula Vx “1(fx a gxy) . Then P(g,y,f) =
= UF(Cgy) = Cu(Cgy)f = BCu(Cg)yf = B(B(Cu))Cgyf. Hence every closed formula
A can be rewritten as a term M built from combinators and U; it can even be
written as a term NU where N contains only combinators (not U). So, omitting
U, every sentence in Schonfinkel's higher order predicate logic can be repre­
sented by a term built from the basic combinators alone.
Around 1928 the combinators were rediscovered by H.B. Curry, who tried
by means of a 'Combinatory Logic* to investigate the foundations of mathe­
matics. The aim of Curry's program is to use CL to give an analysis of sub­
stitution and the use of variables; and to attack the paradoxes like the
one of Russell. CL in Curry's program is also referred to as Illative Com­
binatory Logic, where the word 'illative* denotes the presence of inference
rules as in predicate logic. Curry's program does meet certain obstacles;
Schonfinkel's naive system was inconsistent (as demonstrated by 'Curry's
paradox'), and some later proposed alternative systems also suffered from
inconsistency. The foundational claims of Curry's program are not undisputed,
cf. SCOTT [79].
With a different motivation, a variant of CL was developed at about
the time of Curry's rediscovery of CL, namely 'A-calculus', by Church,
Kleene, Rosser. Kleene was led by the study of A-terms to his First Recur­
sion Theorem and other fundamental recursion theoretic results; A-definabil­
ity of functions was studied and discovered to be equivalent to various
other definitions of 'effective computable* functions (e.g. the one via
Turing machines). (See Kleene's eye-witness account of this period in
CROSLEY [75].) Rosser demonstrated the close connection between A-calculus
and CL, and established, together with Church, the consistency of A-calculus
and CL by a syntactical argument. (The Church-Rosser Theorem for A-calculus
and CL.)
The Church-Rosser theorem yields the existence of term models of A-cal­
culus and CL. Term models of several versions of A and CL were studied in
BARENDREGT [71]. In the last ten years there has been a break-through in
the 'model theory* of A-calculus and CL, starting with the models and Pm
of Scott and Plotkin. These models are of great importance in the semantics
of programming languages.

Main results. As the main results of this thesis we consider

(I) the introduction of the concept CRS and the development of the basic
syntactical theorems for CRS's; notably the Church-Rosser theorem (CR),
the Lemma of Parallel Moves (PM) and the theorem of Finite Developments
(FD), and
(II) simultaneously, the generalization of a method due to R. Nederpelt
which enables one to reduce Strong Normalization proofs for certain CRS's
to Weak Normalization proofs. This device is not only interesting in itself,
but enabled us also to obtain the theorems FD, CR, etc.;
(III) the negative result that CR fails for certain non-left-linear CRS's,
e.g.
A(n) © Surjective Pairing CR
A,CL © PMM ■> M ^ CR
if T then X else Y -> X V CR,
if 1 then X else Y Y
if Z then X else X -> X
on the other hand, the positive result that e.g.
CL © P(M,M) -> M f= CR
CL © if-then-else- as above \= CR.
(In the positive result, CL can be replaced by an arbitrary non-ambiguous
and left-linear TRS; not so in the negative one.)

Summary. The first part of Chapter I (A3-calculus and definable extensions,

which include Recursive Program Schemes) is mainly devoted to the basic
syntactical theorems of A-calculus: the Lemma of Parallel Moves, the Theorem
of Finite Developments and as a consequence, the Church-Rosser Theorem. In
the proofs of these well-known theorems we make a systematic use of labels,
and of reduction diagrams. Since it is convenient for some applications
later on, as well as interesting for its own sake, we not only prove the
fore-mentioned theorems for A3-calculus but for a wider class of 'reduction
systems', which we have called definable extensions of A3-calculus. The re­
sults also hold for substructures of such extensions; e.g. Combinatory Logic
is a substructure of a definable extension of A3-calculus.
The method of proof of 'Finite Developments' was first used in
BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP, VOLKEN [76]; it lends itself easily to prove FD
for other extensions of A-calculus (see also BARENDREGT [80]). The use of
 ix

reduction diagrams is new; it was independently proposed in HINDLEY [78"].

The treatment via reduction diagrams is only a slight refinement of that in
LEVY [78]; it pays off especially in Chapter IV, where A3n-calculus is con­
sidered.
Before proving the Church-Rosser theorem, we have collected in section
1.5 several facts, mostly well-known, which hold for 'Abstract Reduction
Systems' and which we need later on. Typical examples are the Lemma of
Hindley-Rosen and (as we call it) Newman's Lemma. Also a preparation is
made for a part of Chapter II, in the form of Nederpelt's Lemma and related
propositions.
In 1.7 we proceed to prove another classical A-calculus theorem, which
we have called 'Church's Theorem*. It plays a key role in a new proof (in
1.8) of Strong Normalization for typed A-calculus and some more general
labeled A-calculi, such as 'Levy's A-calculus*. Again the theorem is proved
not only for Al-calculus, but for 'definable extensions of Al'.
Sections 1.9 - I.10 contain two new proofs of the well-known Standardi­
zation Theorem. Compared to the known proofs (see e.g. MITSCHKE [79]) these
new proofs yield a simpler algorithm to standardize a reduction. The first
proof is used in Chapter IV to obtain as a new result standardization for
3n-reductions, and the second proof is used at the end of Chapter II to ob­
tain Standardization for some generalizations of the reduction systems in
Chapter I (e.g. for A © recursor R, if one uses the 'left-normal* version
of R). Of all these results the strong versions are proved, in the sense of
(L£vy-) equivalence ~ of reductions. (E.g. for every finite reduction <R,
Li
there is a unique standard reduction which is equivalent to <R. This
strong version of the Standardization Theorem is due to J.J. Levy.) Our
second proof of the Standardization Theorem casts some light on the relation
between standard reductions and equivalence of reductions. As a digression,
using the concept 'meta-reduction' of reductions as in this second proof,
we prove in I.10 some facts about equivalence classes of finite reductions.
(E.g. in Al the cardinality of the equivalence class {<R* <R'} can be any
L
n > 1, but not be infinite.)
Chapter I is concluded by deriving in I.11 the well-known Normalization
Theorem for A3 (and definable extensions thereof) and by considering in 1.12
'cofinal' reductions; the main theorem about such reductions was proved
independently by S. Micali and M. O'Donnell.
X

Chapter II introduces a very general kind of reduction systems, ranging

from Term Rewriting Systems in Computer Science to Normalization procedures
in Proof Theory. These reduction systems can be called 'Term Rewriting
Systems with bound variables'; we refer to them as Combinatory Reduction
Systems„ In Chapter II we pose a severe restriction on such reduction sys­
tems: they have to satisfy the well-known conditions of being 'non-ambiguous
and left-linear'r a phrase which we will abbreviate by 'regular'. For such
CRS's we have proved in Chapter II the main syntactical theorems, such as
the ones mentioned above in the summary of Chapter I. (Normalization and
Standardization only for a restricted class of regular CRS's, though.) Since
the behaviour w.r.t. substitution of CRS's can be arbitrarily complicated
(as contrasted to that of A3), it turned out to be non-trivial to prove the
theorem of Finite Developments, a Strong Normalization result. This ob­
stacle is overcome by a device of Nederpelt for the reduction of SN-proofs
for regular CRS's to WN-proofs. Not only for that reason, but also since
this method seems to have independent merits, we have generalized
Nederpelt's method to the class of all regular CRS's. This is done by in­
troducing 'reductions with memory'; nothing is 'thrown away* in such reduc­
tions; they are non-erasing, like Al-calculus is. In II.5 we generalize
Church's Theorem for Al to all regular non-erasing CRS's. Section II.6 con-
L T HW
tains a generalization of the Strong Normalization theorem for A ,A ,A in
Chapter 1.8, to regular CRS's for which a 'decreasing labeling' can be found
(like the types in a typed A-calculus are decreasing labels). This generali­
zation enables us in turn to extend L£vy's method of labeling to all regular
CRS's, and to prove the corresponding SN-result (this is only executed for
TRS's, i.e. CRS's without substitution, though). As a corollary we obtain
Standardization and Normalization for some 'left-normal' regular CRS's.

Whereas in Chapter I and II we considered only regular CRS's, we deal

in Chapter III with some irregular ones, namely with some non-left-linear
CRS's; i.e. in a reduction rule some metavariable in the LHS of a reduction
rule occurs twice, as in Vxx ■+ X. (Except for the case of 'Surjective Pair­
ing* we do not consider ambiguous rules; for results about ambiguous TRS's
we refer to HUET [78] and HUET-OPPEN [80].)
Non-left-linearity (we will omit the word 'left* sometimes) of the re­
duction rules turns out to be an obstacle to the CR-property: in a non­
linear CRS which is 'strong enough', the CR-property fails. This is proved
for some non-linear extensions of A-calculus (or Combinatory Logic), thus
 xi

answering some questions of C. Mann, R. Hindley and J. Staples negatively.

Although the intuition behind these CR-counterexamples is easily grasped,
the proof that they are indeed so requires several technicalities. In an
Intermezzo we expand this intuition using the well-known 'Bohm-trees', a
kind of infinite normal forms for terms.
In III.3 we have considered for these non-linear systems for which CR
fails, other properties (which are otherwise corollaries of CR) such as
Unicity of Normal forms (UN), Consistency, etc. Even though CR fails, UN
does hold for the systems considered.
In III.4,5 we prove CR for some restricted classes of non-linear CRS's.
Most notable is a positive answer to a question suggested in O'DONNELL [77]
Does CR hold when the non-linear trio of rules (*)
if true then X else Y -> X
if false then X else Y -> Y
if X then Y else Y + Y
is added to a regular TRS?
This is seemingly in contradiction with our earlier CR-counterexample for
CL © B where B is a constant representing the branching operation above,
having the rules
B t x y + X, BlXY + Y, Bx y y -> Y.
The explanation is that CL © B CR, but CL © B (-,-,-) \= CR, where the
notation B (-,-,-) means that B has to have three arguments (i.e. B cannot
occur alone). In the formulation of (*) as above this is similar, and so
O'Donnell's question can be answered positively.

Chapter IV, finally, is not related to Chapters II, III, but considers
ABn-calculus. Via a new concept of 'residual* for £r|-reductions (for which
the lemma of Parallel Moves holds, in contrast to the case of the ordinary
residuals) we prove the Standardization and Normalization theorem for A3u,
thus solving some questions of Hindley. Here we profit from the concept of
'reduction diagram* and from our first proof of the Standardization Theorem
for A3 in 1.9. Also an extension of the result in 1.12 about cofinal reduc­
tions is given.
 xiii

INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE SECTIONS

The interdependence of the sections is as suggested by the following tree.

 1

CHAPTER I

AI3-CALCULUS AND DEFINABLE EXTENSIONS

1. LAMBDA TERMS

1.1. The alphabet of the A-calculus consists of symbols v^, for all i e I ,
brackets ( ) and X. From this alphabet the set Ter(X) of \-terms is in­
ductively defined as follows:

(i) v± e Ter(^) for all i € IN (the variables)

(ii) A,B e Ter(X) => (AB) e Ter(X) (application)
(iii) A e Ter(X) => (Xv^A) e Ter(X) for all i e JN . (X-abstract ion)

If in (iii) the restriction is added: "if occurs as a free variable in

A" (see 1.3 below) we get the set Ter(Xl) of XI-terms.
Sometimes we will consider A-terms plus a set of constants C =
In that case we change Ter(X) into Ter(XC) in the above
clauses and add

(0) X e Ter(XC) for all X e C.

1.2. Some notational conventions will be employed:

(1) the outermost brackets of a term will be omitted;

(2) we will use a,b,c,...,x,y,z as metavariables for v^,v ,... ;
(3) instead of e.g. Xx(xx) we will also use the dot notation Ax.xx, and
instead of Xxx or Xxy we write Xx.x resp. Ax.y;
(4) a number of brackets will be omitted under the convention of association
to the left; that is if A„,A .....A e Ter(X) then A„A ...A abbreviates
1 2 n 1 2 n
((...(((A1A2)A3)A4 )...)An );
(5) for a multiple A-abstraction Xx^(Xx^(- --(Xx^.A)...)) we will write
Xx.x ...x .A. (The x.(i = 1,...,n) will be in practice pairwise dis-
1 2 n i
tinct, although e.g. Xxx.xx is a well-formed term. See 1.6.)
2

1.3. Let x be some variable and M e Ter (A). Define <f>^(M) by induction on
the structure of M as follows:

(i) d> (x) = x and d) (y) = y for x f y.

x — X
(ii) <PX (AB) = (<frX A) (<j>X B)
(iii) d> (Ax. A) = Ax. A and c^(Ay.A) = A y . ^ A for
X

EXAMPLE. (f)^(Ay .xx ((Ax.xx) (yx) )) = Ay.xx( (Ax.xx) (yx) ) . So (J)^ underlines some
x's in M; namely the free occurrences of x in M. Let $ (M) be the set of
x
those occurrences, and define the set of occurrences of free variables of

FV(M) = U $ (M) ,
xeVAR X

where VAR is the set of variables. An occurrence of x in M is called bound

when it is i FV(M). M is a closed term if FV(M) = 0.

1.4. For every variable x and N e Ter(A) we have a substitution operator

o = [x := N ], a mapping from Ter(A) to Ter(A), defined inductively as fol­
lows :

(i) a (x) = N and a (y) = y for x ^ y

(ii) a (AB) = (a A) (a B)
X X X
(iii) a^CAx.A) = Ax.A and a^(Ay.A) = Ay.a^A for x $ y.

So the mapping = [x:=N] substitutes N for all the free occurrences of x

in M, as is seen by looking at the parallel definition in 1.3.
Note that our substitution operator also yields 'dishonest* substitu­
tions like

Cx:=yy] (Ay.yx) = Ay.y(yy)

but that is intentional; see 1.5 below.

1.5. Contexts. Consider an extra constant □ and the set Ter(A{n}) as defined
in 1.1. The constant □ is intended to be a 'hole'; so a term e Ter(A{n}) is a
A-term containing some holes. We will only need A-terms containing precisely
one hole; they will be called contexts. We can also define them inductively
as follows:
 3

(i) □ is a context (the trivial one)

(ii) if A e Ter(A) and B is a context, then (AB) and (BA) are contexts
(iii) if A is a context, then Ax.A is a context.

We use the notation C[ ] for a context. If M e Ter(A) , then (£[M] = [d :=M]

C[ ], where it is obvious how to define[n:=M]. Here variables, free in M,
may become bound in <£[m ]. M is called a subterm of N= <E[m ]; notation M c N.
We will also write 's e N' for symbols s (i.e. variables or A or brackets)
occurring in N. Note that y e Ax.y and y c Ax.y, but y e Ay.x and y ^ Ay.x.

1.6. a-reduction. Expressions which result from each other by renaming bound
variables should obviously be identified, for instance in calculus
x2dx = y^dy, or in predicate logic Elx.A(x) e 3y.A(y) . Therefore:
let Ax.A e Ter(A) and y £ Ax.A. Then we define a-reduction as follows:

cCAx.A] (C[Ay.[ x:=y]A] for every context <t[ ].

Let E^ denote the equivalence relation (' a-conversion') generated by

1.7. While a-reduction is a mere technicality, 3-reduction (-+) which we

p
are going to define now, is the basic concept of A-calculus.
Terms of the form (Ax .A)B will be called 3-redexes and in view of the
intended interpretation of A-terms we should like to replace such a 3-redex
by [x:=B]A. However, consider the following sequences of such reductions
(i.e. replacements):

(Ax.xx)(Aab.ab)
J

(Aab.ab) (Aab.ab)

Ab.(Aab.ab)b Ab.(Aac.ac)b
a ,V V W /'

B = Ab.(Ac.be)

Now, if our formalism used arrows, as in the example, to denote 'binding*

of variables x by abstractors Ax, then the terms A,B (plus arrows) are
syntactically equal and no harm is done in the step -1-: but it is implicit
in the definition of 'free and bound' that a variable x is bound by the
nearmost Ax. Hence Ab.(Ab.bb) is to be interpreted as Ab.(Ab.bb) - and
4

??
so the step was erroneous.
This leads us to postulating a condition on 3-redexes, for the moment
only:
(Xx.A)B is unsafe if some variable y(^x) is free in B and A has a sub-
term Ay.C containing x as free variable.

Now we define one-step 3-reduction by the clauses:

(i) if (Xx.A)B is a safe (i.e. not unsafe) 3 -redex and (C[ ] a context, then

<C[ (Ax .A) B] — z * <C[[x :=B]A]

p

(ii) if M E M' — N ' = N for some M' , N' , then M N.

a p a 3

There are several other ways to get around the a-conversion problem; in
BARENDREGT [71] an almost similar method is used; another way is to define
[x:=N] such that a-reduction is built in to prevent confusion of variables
(but note that in [n:=N] we intended that variables could be 'captured'!);
a third method is to work, in one way or another, with arrows like above
(see also DE BRUIJN [72]).
Henceforth we will forget everything about a-reduction. Instead of =
a
we write just = for syntactical equality.
Let R = (Ax.A)B and R' = [x:=B]A. Then the step <E[r ] — —> C[R' ] is
3
called a contraction of R, and R' is the contractum equality.
We will often omit the subscript 3 and write just M N. When we want
to display the contracted redex R we will write M -- >■ N.
The transitive reflexive closure of — ► is denoted by — » . The equality
(equivalence relation) generated by -+ is called convertibility and written
as = 3 or = .
Note that from the definition of — -r* it follows that for all terms
p
A,B:

A --- » B => C[A] --» C[B]

A = B => <C[A] = <C[B] .

A sequence of reduction steps is mostly denoted by (R (plus subscripts

etc.) e.g.

-* M .
n
 5

Although it is a slight abuse of notation we sometimes write also

(R = M — » m .
0 n

1.7.1. REMARK. We will refer to the 'reduction system' A3-calculus, con­

sisting of the pair <Ter(A), — r-», also as A-calculus or even A without
p
more. Likewise the reduction system Al-calculus <Ter(Al), — r-» will be re­
fs
ferred to as Al.
In section 5 we will consider 'abstract reduction systems' <A,-» where
A is some set and -- >■ a binary operation on A; in Chapter II we introduce
'combinatory reduction systems', generalizing A-calculus.

1.8. ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS

(i) Instead of Ax....x . A we use sometimes the vector notation Ax.A;

- 1 n
likewise MN for MN„...N .
1 n
(ii) In R E (Ax.A)B we call Ax.A the function part of R and B the argument
of R.
(iii) Simultaneous substitution. Let x be x. ,...,x and let no x. be free
4- I n i
in B = B f.■.fB . Then the result of the n reduction steps

(Ax .A)B — » [x :=B ]...[x. :=B .] A E C

n n 1 1

can be seen as (and is in fact defined as) the simultaneous substitu­

tion of B.,...,B for x.,...,x in A. We will write
1 n 1 n

C = [x:=B]A = [x.--- -x := B ,...,B ]A.

I n i n

Note the difference with the sequential substitution:

Ay .(-- . (Ay . (Ay .A)B ) B ---)B --- »

n Z 1 1 2 n

CV =Bn ]---[Y2 :=B2]Cyi:=Bl]A'

where Yi+^ /•••#Yn may be free in B^ (i = 1,...,n-l).

(iv) We often employ the usual convention of writing A(B^,...,Bn ) instead
of [x„,...,x := B ....,B ]A, after a preceding declaration of the
l n l n
variables for which one has to substitute:
6

"Let A = A(x f ", or implicitly as in:

(Axy.A (x ,y) )BC — » A(B,C).

Note that such a declaration does not say anything about FV(A), unless ex­
plicitly stated otherwise (as in 1.10).

1.9. NORMAL FORMS

1.9.1. DEFINITION. A A-term M not containing redexes is called a normal

form. (Or: M is in normal form.)
Notation: M e N F .
Obviously, the goal of reducing a term is to reach a normal form, as a
'final answer' of the computation. However, not every term can be reduced
to a normal form. The simplest example is the term ft = mm where a) = Ax.xx;
then

ft ft ft ...

and this is the only possible reduction. For other terms it depends on the
chosen reduction whether or not the term 'normalizes'; e.g. abbreviating
K = Axy.x and I = Ax.x we have the infinite reduction

Klft Klft -* ...

but also

Klft I, a normal form.

1.9.2. DEFINITION.
(i) M has a normal form <=> 3N e NF M — » N .
Instead of 'M has a n.f.' we will also say:
M is weakly normalizing. Notation: M e WN.
(iii) M is strongly normalizing <=» every reduction of M must terminate even­
tually (in a normal form).
E.g. Klft € WN - SN.

Here the question arises whether a term can have two distinct normal
forms. Fortunately this is not the case: if a term has a nf., then that
 7

nf. is unique, as we will prove later.

1.10. COMBINATORIAL COMPLETENESS. Let A(x„,...,x

1 n ) e Ter(A) be a term with
free variables x, ,.. .,x . Then it is not hard to find an F e Ter(A) such
1 n
that

FX1***xn = A(xi'* **'xn >* (I)

One simply takes F = Ax^.-.x^. A(x^, ...,x^); then (I) holds (even with =
replaced by — » ) .
We say that A-calculus satisfies the principle of ’combinatorial complete­
ness1. (In the system CL of the next section this principle is less trivial.)

1.11. FIXED POINTS. Surprisingly, every A-term (when it is considered as a

function Ter (A)/_ __ >■ Ter (A)/_ ) has a fixed point:

VF 3X FX = X.

It is even possible to find such an X in a uniform way; that is, there is

an Y e Ter(A) such that

VF F (YF) = YF, or equivalently,

f(Yf) = Yf for a variable f.

We will describe how to construct such an Y. Let us try to find a term ,

F
containing F as subterm, such that — » Fft . Suppose that Q = m m .
F F F F F
where the first m„ is meant to 'act' and the second w serves for the re-
F F
construction of the original m . So m m — » F(a) m ), which leads to re-
F F F ^F F
quiring w x — » F (xx) . " ^" *
F -___ -
Therefore, take: m^ = Ax.F(xx). Hence we can take

Y = Af.mfa)f = Af. (Ax.f (xx) ) (Ax.f (xx) ) .

The term Y is Curry's fixed point combinator. Using a slightly different

construction we find Turing's fixed point combinator Y^ which has the tech­
nical advantage (not shared by Y) that

VF F (Y ^F) « — YtF
8

For, suppose as above Y = 00. So 00F -» F(00F) ; hence we try to find 0

such that X*

0xF ---» F(xxF). Thus take 0 = Axf.f(xxf) and

Y = (Axf.f(xxf))(Axf.f(xxf)).
T

In a similar way everybody can construct his own fixed point combinator Tz
by requiring r = yy...y (n > 2 times) and proceeding as above, it is not
hard to see that every choice

y = Aa a .a f .f (wf)
1 2 n-1

where w is an arbitrary word over the alphabet {a^,...,a^_^} of length n,

yields a fixed point combinator T.
Sometimes it is convenient to have a fixed point combinator with
_
parameter(s) P = P ....,P ; for example
1 m
->•
Y^ = (Axpf.f(xxpf))(Axpf.f(xxpf)P.

An amusing way of deriving new f.p. combinators from old ones is men­
tioned in BOHM [66] (or see CURRY-HINDLEY-SELDIN [72], p.156): to find a
solution Y for Yf = f(Yf), or equivalently for Y = [Ayf.f(yf)]Y, amounts
to the same thing as finding a fixed point of Ayf.f(yf).
Hence: if Y' is a f.p. combinator, then Y" 5 Y'Ayf.f(yf) is a f.p. combina­
tor. In this way one gets starting with (say) Curry's Y, an infinite se­
quence of f.p. combinators. Notice that Yt is the second one in the sequence
(One can prove that they are pairwise inconvertible.)

The main application of fixed point combinators is that we can "define"

a term X in an impredicative way, i.e. in terms of X itself; that is, every
equation in X of the form X = A(X), has a solution, namely X = YAx .A(x ).
And if Y is used one has even: X ---» A(X) .
T
An example of a simple application: let P and H be such that
P ---» Ax .P (xF) and H ---» Ay.H. Then PH ---» P(HF) ---» PH ---» ...
(P produces food F for the hungry H.)
Finally, let us mention that it is straightforward to generalize this
to the case of n 'equations' in X ,...,X as follows:
1 n
 9

'xi — Ai(xi.....V
■Xn — > > A n (Xl....V -

(Multiple fixed point theorem)

PROOF. For n = 2: define <M> := Az.zM and the pairing <M,N> := Az.zMN, where
z is not free in M,N. Then <K> and <KI>, where K = Axy.y and I = Ax.x, are
the corresponding unpairing operators (write <K>A =: A^ and <KI>A =: A^):

<M,N>q -- ► <M,N>K -- ► KMN --» M

<M,N> -- y <M,N> (KI) -- ► KIMN --» N.

Now to solve

X ---» A(X,Y)

Y ---» B(X,Y)

it suffices to find a Z such that Z — » <A(Zg,Z^), , which can

easily be done: take Z = Yt Az .<A(z^,z^) , B(z^,z^)>. Finally, take X = Z^
and Y = Z . □

REMARK. For another proof, working also for Al-calculus (in contrast to this
proof), see BARENDREGT [76].

REMARK. The multiple fixed point theorem also holds for an infinite system
E of reduction ’equations' if E is recursively given. This requires the
deeper result of the representability of recursive functions in the A-cal-
culus. See BARENDREGT [71].

1.12. DEFINABLE EXTENSIONS

1.12.1. DEFINITION.(i) Let the alphabet of A-calculus be extended by a set

P = {P± | i e 1} of new constants and let Ter(AP) be the set of 'AP-terms'
as defined in Definition 1.1.
Furthermore, let J c i and let for all i e J a reduction rule be given
of the following form:
10

P.X„...X
1 1 n. 2i (xi.... Y p, .........p .Dm-
for all X ....,X e Ter(AP) . Here n. > 0 , and the Q. are AP-terms contain-
1 i i
ing some of the meta-variables X ,...,X (possibly none), but no other
1 ni
meta-variables. The X ,...,X must be pairwise distinct.
1 ni
Then the reduction system consisting of Ter(AP) and as reduction
rules: 3-reduction and the P^-rules (ieJ), is called a definable extension
of A-calculus. We will refer to it as '\P-calculus’.
(ii) Terms of the form P.X,...X (ieJ) are called P.-redexes; n. is the
i 1 ni i l
aritu of the P.-redex. Constants P. where i i J are called inert constants
i l
(they do not exhibit any activity since there is no reduction rule for them)

1.12.2. REMARK, (i) In Chapter III we will consider reduction rules without
the restriction that the meta-variables X „ ,...,X be pairwise distinct.
i ni
(ii) The reason for this terminology is that (if I is finite) by virtue of
the combinatorial completeness and the (multiple) fixed point theorem, we
can "solve" the set of "reduction-equations with unknowns P^"; that is we
can find A-terms P. and 3-reductions
l

= pi V - - Y Qi (xi.... V ' Y .... pj

i i 1 m.
i

If I is infinite, we will in general not be able to find defining re­

ductions (R^, but by a slight abuse of terminology we will also call such
extensions definable (anyway, each finite part is definable).

EXAMPLES. 1. A-calculus + {V,E} and EM >■ VMM for all M e Ter(A{P,E}) . V

is an inert constant.

2. A-calculus + {P} and PABC ■+ P(AC)B for all A,B,C. P can be defined by
e.g. P e YTApabc.p(ac)b.

These two examples will play a role in the sequel.

3. An arbitrarily chosen example: A-calculus + {P,0,P} and the rules

Pa b c a P(a c O)

Qa Ax .x a PP
Pa b c d AC(PAx .x O)a P
 11

1.13. REMARK. The definable extensions of A-calculus are closely related to

Recursive Program Schemes (RPS); see LEVY-BERRY [79], MANNA [74]. In the
theory of RPS's we have disjoint sets F = (f ,...,f }, the basic function
1 m
symbols, standing for 'known' functions, and $ = }, the unknown
1 N
function symbols. Each f^ and has an arity p (f^) , resp. p (<f>^) > 0.
Now a recursive program scheme Z is a system of equations

<|>.(x ,...,x .) = t . (i = 1 ,...,N) ,

i 1 P(4)i) i

where the are terms built up in the usual way from symbols in F, $ and
variables x„,...,x v.
1 P(4>i)

EXAMPLE.

(f>1 (x) = f1 (x,^ (x) ,<t>2 (x,y) )

Z E «
<P2 (x,y) = f2 (4>2 (x,x) ,<f)1 (f3)) .

The connection with definable extensions AP of A-calculus is evident. (Re­

place in Z '= ' by '— ►'.) The basic function symbols f^ are what we called
in 1.11 'inert' constants P , the unknown function symbols are the remaining
P in P. The definable extensions are slightly more general, syntactically
speaking, than the RPS's since in AP also A-terms occur and since in an
RPS an n-ary symbol <f> has to have n arguments: <J>(t ,. ..,t^) , whereas in
AP for an n-ary P also Pm ^ , PM^M^,.. are well-formed terms (see the examples
above).

1.14. REMARK. Since almost everything in this Chapter will prove to hold
for definable extensions, it will hold also for RPS's (anyway in this simple
version, where the only operation is substitution of unknown function sym­
bols) . Almost all of these results for RPS's were obtained already in LEVY-
BERRY [79]; but in the sequel one finds some alternative proofs for some
of these facts (FD, standardization).

2. COMBINATORS

2.1. We will now introduce a system called Combinatory Logic, or CL, which
is closely related to A-calculus. The main difference is that CL is vari­
able free. The CL-terms or combinators are built up from the alphabet
12

{(/)/I/K,S) as follows:

(i) I ,K,S e Ter(CL)

(ii) A,B e Ter(CL) => (AB) e Ter(CL).

Just as before we will admit meta-variables A,B,C,..., ranging over CL-

terms, in a meta-CL-term. Again, we use the convention of association to
the left.

2.2. Reduction in CL is generated by the rules

(i) lA -- ► A
(ii) /(AB -- ► A
(iii) SABC -- >- AC(BC)

for all CL-terms A,B,C. Here 'generated' means:

A -- ► B => <C[A] -- ► C[B]

for every context C[ ]. Contexts <E[ ] are defined as in A-calculus, see

section 1; and the same for = , — » , =.
Terms of the form Ia , /Ca b , SABC are called (I-,/C-,S-) redexes. Again
a term is a normal form (nf) iff it contains no redexes and has a nf if it
reduces to one.

2.3. REMARK. One may also take S,K alone as basic combinators for CL, since
I can then be defined: I = SKK. For, then IA = SKKa -- > Ka (Ka ) -- > A. For
several other bases for CL, see CURRY, FEYS [58].

2.4. REMARK. Call a combinator 'flat' if it has no visible brackets (under

the usual convention). E.g. SISSS1I.
One can prove that all flat combinators built up from S and K, have a
normal form (moreover they are strongly normalizing). If the combinator I
is included as well, this does not hold:

SISSSII — ►
IS(55)511 — ►
S(SS)SII — ►
SSI (SI) I — ►
S (SI) (I (SI))I — >
S(SI) (SI) I — ►
 13

A SII (SIT)----»
l I (SII) (7 (SIT)) — ►
VsiI(KSII))

2.5. INTERMEZZO. The connection between reduction in X-calculus and CL.

This subsection, in which some terminology from the sequel is used,

is only needed in Chapter III.
Usually one includes variables in the term-formation of CL-terms. This
may seem a bit odd after claiming that CL is the variable free version of
A-calculus. The reason however is that the variables are needed to demon­
strate the connection between A-calculus and CL, namely to define abstrac­
tion [x] as an analogon of Ax.
We will give a slightly different treatment, in order to show how far
the correspondence between reduction in CL and reduction in A-calculus
reaches.

2.5.1. DEFINITION. A3 + CL is the definable extension of A-calculus obtain­

ed by adding S,K,J plus their reduction rules (as above) . By --- >- we denote
CL
the contraction of an S-, K-, I-redex. Moreover we add a reduction rule,
called 'translation', written , defined by:
T

(i) Ax.x »• I
T
(ii) Ax.A * Ka if x i FV (A)
T
(iii) Ax .AB S(Ax.A)(Ax.B) if the previous rules are not applicable.

EXAMPLE. (Ax.xx) (Ax.xx) S(Ax.x) (Ax.x) (Ax.xx) '— ^ SII(Ax.xx)

--------- T T T T
SII (SII) .

It is routine to prove that is strongly normalizing and has the

Church-Rosser property. Hence every term M in A3 + CL has a unique t -normal
form, called t (M).
A more economic variant of t , called t ', is obtained by changing t
into t ' above and inserting between (ii) and (iii) the rule

(ii) ' Ax. Ax '— ** A if x l FV (A) .

T

A comparison: t '(Axyz.xz(yz)) = S while t (Axyz.xz(yz)) =

S(S(KS) (S(KK) (S(KS) (S(S(KS) (S(KK)J)) (KJ)))))(S (S(KS) (S (KK) I)) (KJ)) .
14

Unfortunately it is not so that M — —» N => t (M) ---- -» t (N) .

p CL

EXAMPLE.

M E Ax.(Ay.y)(xx) S ( K J ) ( S II) E t (M)

N E Ax.xx SIT E t (N).

T

The problem is that the reductions 1

— and — -— >- or -- ’interfere' (are
T (iii) p CL
ambiguous) in the sense of Chapter II; for consider

Ax.(Ay.A(y))B S (Axy.A(y))(Ax.B)
T I
B |
I I
Ax .A(B) -------?

Another source of trouble is demonstrated in the following example:

Ax.(C[KAB (x )]D S (Ax.C[KAB(x)])(Ax.D)

CL 1CL
S (Ax .c Ca ]) (Ax .D)

1T
S(K(C[A]) (Kd )
Ax.(C[A]D /C(c [a ]d )— -?

where the context (C[ ] and the teinns A ,B ,D are arbitrary but such that x
occurs only free in B.
Let us remove the cause of this trouble by defining:

(i) a (3- or CL-)redex R occurring in M e A6 + CL is safe iff R does not

occur inside a subterm Ax.A of M.
(ii) A (3- or CL-)reduction in A3 + CL is safe iff only safe redexes are
contracted in it.

Now we can state the following fact:

safe
2.5.2. PROPOSITION. Let A,B,C € A3 + CL be such that A -»> C and
lrCL
A — '~» b . Then there is a D such that B safe
T
Likewise for t ’.
 15

I n a d ia g ra m :

safe |safe
3,CL B, CL
T
C ~" -- . -» D

where th e d a sh ed o r d o tte d arro w s h ave th e u s u a l e x i s t e n t i a l m e a n in g .

PROOF. It is sufficient to prove the proposition for the case that A b

is in fact one step. Since the proof is tedious but routine, we will sketch
it only.
In case the step A B is by clause (i) , (ii) (or (ii) ' for t ') of
the definition of (D follows easily since then (say for clause (i)):

A B and now (1) is a direct con­

T
safe (i) safe
sequence of the fact that the
B ,CL B/CL
right side of this "elementary
C
T diagram" does not split into
(i)
more steps.

In case A B is by clause (iii) we claim: VABC3D

from which (1) also follows.

safe (iii)
safe
B,CL 6,CL

(iii)

If A C is a CL-step, the claim is easy to prove.

If A C is a g-step, say that R is the contracted redex. Underline the
head-X of R with , and underline the head-X's of the "t ,... -redexes"
( m )
Xx.FG with ~ .

Case (a). The symbols __ and are disjoint. No problem.

Case (b) . Else, perform in the reduction A B first the t
(iii)
contraction of the Xx.FG t ,... -redex.
— (m )
Then we have the following situation:
16

A = — (Ax.FG)H— — > — S(Xx.F) (Ax.G)H— >» B

~ T (iii) T (iii)
C L ,safe CL,safe
8,safe
B '=— (Ax.F )H ((Ax.G) H) — ~ ™ » b "

i!
18 T (iii) 8,safe

C = — F (H) (G (H) )— = --F(H ) (G(H)) —

T CLii)

The completion of the diagram as shown, gives no problems, since the two
new 8-steps are in the easy case (a) w.r.t. t h e > -reduction from B' to
B". tCili)
The safety condition is easily checked. □

An example of safe reduction is head-reduction, i.e. the redex to be

contracted occurs at the head of the term. (Leftmost reduction, i.e. con­
tracting the redex whose head-symbol is leftmost of all the redexes, is not
always safe however.) So e.g. the reduction Y M — M(Y M) 'translates well',
2 T 8 T
since it is a head-reduction, into x'tY^M) — » t '(M(Yt M)). Here t '(Y ) =
[S(K(SI)) (SII) ][S(K(SI)) (SII) ].

From the previous proposition we conclude at once the

2.5.3. THEOREM (Combinatory completeness of CL).

Given a 'meta-CL-term' M(A„,...,A ) in which meta-variables A ....,A occur,
I n I n
one can find a CL-term N such that

NR A -- — -- *> M(A ).
1 n CL 1 n

PROOF. Let N' e A8 + CL be Ax,...x .M(x,,...,x ). Then obviously N'A,...A

----- I n i n 1 1 n
— -— » M(A ,...,A ) by a head-reduction for all A ,...,A e CL.
p i n I n
Hence by the proposition (since head-reduction is safe):

T (N'A ...A ) --— --» T(M(A /.. .,A )) E M(A ,...,A ) .

1 n CL I n I n

The last identity is due to the fact that M is a (meta) CL-term, so (con­
taining no A's) a T-normal form.
Now take N = t N*, then t (N'A ...A ) = NA,...A and the result follows. □
I n I n
 17

2.5.4. REMARK, (i) In the other direction, the translation is easy: let for
a CL-term M, M be the result of replacing I by Ax.x, K by Axy.x and S by
A
Axyz.xz(yz). Then obviously

M - o r * M' ^ •

(ii) If M is a CL-term having a normal form, or even in nf, it does n o t fol­

low that the A-term M has a nf too.
A
Counterexample: M = S(Ku) (Km) where oj = SI I.
This is not due to the erasing nature of Kj in the non-erasing variant
CL^ of CL (which is to CL what Al-calculus is to A-calculus) based on the
primitive combinators {I,S,B,C} where BXYZ — ► X(YZ) and CXYZ — > XZY, one
has similar counterexamples, e.g. 8 (CToj) (Coj) and S (CT (CToj)) (Cw) .

One gets a better correspondence between A-calculus and CL by consider­

ing convertibility '=' instead of reduction and by adding extensionality
('n-reduction'). Further, a still better correspondence is obtained by de­
fining the so called 'strong reduction' in CL. See CURRY-FEYS [58], CURRY,
HINDLEY, SELDIN [72], HINDLEY, LERCHER, SELDIN [72], STENLUND [72] and
BARENDREGT [80].

3. LABELS AND DESCENDANTS

3.0. INTRODUCTION

There is a clear intuition of symbols being moved (multiplied, erased)

during a reduction; so we can t r a c e them. This gives rise to the concept
of 'd e s c e n d a n t s 1 which we introduce by means of a A-calculus in which sym­
bols can be marked (by some color, say) in order to be able to keep track
of them. This is done in 3.1 - 3.3, and for definable extensions AP in 3.4.
Then we introduce 'underlining' in 3.5. Up to there, the markers (or labels)
do n o t a f f e c t th e a d m is s ib le r e d u c t io n s since they are merely a book-keeping
device.
This is different however in the remainder of this section: there the
labels do affect the allowed reductions. In 3.6 we introduce 'd e v e lo p m e n t s ',
in 3.7 the A^-calculus of Hyland and Wadsworth, in 3.9 the AL-calculus of
Levy. At the end of this section all these systems with some of their re­
lations are brought together in a figure.
18

3.1. DEFINITION. Let M e Ter(A) and let A be some set of symbols, called
labels or indexes. Then Ter(A^) is defined inductively as follows:

(i) x& e Ter(A^) for all variables x and all a e A

(ii) A,B € Ter(A^) =» (AB)a e A^ for all a e A
(iii) A e Ter(A^) => (Ax.A)a e Ter(A^) for all x and all a e A.

A term A e Ter(A^) will sometimes by written as M 1 where M is the A-term

obtained from A by erasing the labels and I: Sub(M) -> A is the indexing map
(or labeling) corresponding to A. Here Sub(M) is the set of occurrences of
subterms of M.

EXAMPLE (in case A = UN):

I ,r, , 7 8 20-.4 1 0.2 37

M ([Ax.(x x ) J (y z ) )

Instead of looking at M1 as a A-term whose subterms are labeled, one

can also consider I as an indexing of the symbols of M:

f [ Ax ( x x ) ] ( y z ) )
37 4 4 20 7 8 20 4 2 1 0 237

such that matching brackets get the same label and an abstractor Ax gets
the same label as the 'corresponding' brackets. The (psychological) advan­
tage is that Sub(M) is partially ordered (by c) while Symb(M), the set of
symbol-occurrences, is linearly ordered.
If A = E , we can identify 'label O' with 'no label'; thus we obtain
also partial indexings.

Sometimes we will write the A-labels as superscripts, sometimes as sub­

scripts .

3.2. LABELED B-REDUCTION. Our first use of labels will be: tracing subterms
(or symbols) during a reduction. Consider the (3-redex M 1 above which served
as example, and view the labels as if they were firmly attached to the sym­
bols. (So we can conveniently visualize the labels as colors.) Then it is
almost obvious what the labeled contractum of M 1 should be:

( (y z ) (y z ) )
20 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 20
 19

The 'almost' is because it requires a moment ..of thought to see that the
outermost brackets must have label 20 and not 37 or 4.
It is now obvious how to define labeled ^-reduction, notation — --- > :

((Ax.A)aB)b -- ^ [x:=B]A

for all Ter(A^)-terms A,B. Here substitution a = [x:=B] is defined by

a(xa) = B, a(ya) = y& for y f x

a(AB)a = ((aA) (aB) )a

a a
a(Ax.A) = (Ax.aA) .

This 'reduction system', consisting of the set of terms Ter(A^) and reduc­
tion rule 8^/ will be called \^-calculus.

R
3.3. DESCENDANTS. Consider M e A and a 8-reduction step iR = M -- y N. Let
I: Sub (M) -- y A be a labeling of M. Then, obviously, <R and I determine in
a unique way the 8^-reduction step <R = M
* I R
-- y N
J for some labeling J of N
(simply by contracting the 'same' redex R, but now also taking care of the
labels).
Now let I be an initial labeling, that is: labels of distinct subterm
occurrences are distinct. (So let A be infinite.) Define for all symbol oc­
currences s,t € M and for all subterm occurrences S,T c M the following re­
lation :

s-.-.-*t iff J(s) = J(t)

S-.-.-*T iff J(S) = J (T)

In case <R consists of several steps, <R = M — » N, we write s-.-.-» t resp.

S-.-.-» T. We say that s descends to t, or that t is a descendant of s, or
that s is an ancestor of t; likewise for S and T.

3.3.1. REMARKS.
(i) Let M -- y N. Then the redex R E (Ax.A)B has no descendants in N. The
same holds for (Ax.A) and the x's free in A.
(ii) Descendants of a redex are often called residuals. Note that resi­
duals are again redexes.
20

(iii) Notice that if M N (M,Ne A) and A c M, then the descendants T_^ c N

of A are mutually disjoint. However in the case of a many step reduc­
tion M — » n this need not be the case: see Remark 4.4.2 below.
(iv) Note also that if <R = M M ' and s' e M' (resp. S' c M') then
s' (resp.S') has a u n iq u e a n c e s t o r s e M (resp. Sc m ), which will in
general depend on the actual reduction <R from M to M' .

3.4. DESCENDANTS FOR CL AND DEFINABLE EXTENSIONS AP

Let AP be a definable extension of A. Again we will derive the concept

of descendants for AP from a labeled version (AP)^. The definition of (AP)^-
terms is obtained from Def. 3.1 by adding to (i): Pa is a (AP)^-term for all
P e P, a e A.
Now to each P-rule of AP,

PV-'An—^2(Al.....V
there correspond in (AP)^ the rules

a a a a
(...((P °A ) A ) Z ...A ) " -- »■ Q ( A A )
1 z n I n

for all aQ ,...,an e A. Note that in the RHS of those labeled P-rules no A -
labels occur (i.e. only the zero label 0 which is not written); except of
course the labels which occur in the (AP)^-terms substituted for the meta­
variables A , ...,A .
1 n

EXAMPLE. If PABC -- v B(PAAC) is a rule in AP, then for all a,bfc,d e A the
rules ( ( ( A ) ' iB)bC)C >- B(PAAC) are in (AP)^.

3.4.1. DESCENDANTS. Extend Def. 3.3 (of descendants) to definable extensions

AP, using the above definition of (AP)^.

3.4.2. REMARK. From this extended definition we have at once the following
facts:

(i) Like B-redexes, also P-redexes leave no residuals after their contrac­
tion.
(ii) In contrast with B-reduction, when P-reductions are present n o t every
subterm N' c M' in a reduction step M -- »- M' has an ancestor N c M.
 21

E.g. in Pabc -- ► b(Paac) where a,b,c are variables all the sub terms
P, Pa, Paa, Paac, b(Paac) of b(Paac) have no ancestors in Pabc. But if
N' has an ancestor, it is unique.

A motivation for this definition of descendants will follow now; first we

need a definition.

3.4.3. DEFINITION.
(i) Let Pa ....A -- ► Q(A,,...,A ) be a rule in AP. This P-rule is called
I n 1 n
proper if P "acts effectively" on all the A^,...,A^; i.e. for no
Q '(A,,...,A ,) (not containing the metavariable A ) we have Q = Q'A .
1 n-1 n n
E.g. PABC -- »■ B(Pa a )C is not a proper rule, but

Pa b c — ► b (Pa a c )

Pa b c — v b c (Pa a )c are proper rules.

(ii) AP is called proper if al its P-rules are proper.

3.4.4. REMARK. Every definable extension \P can be 'embedded' in a proper

definable extension (AP)', as follows. If AP contains e.g. the improper rule
PABC — ► B(Pa a )C then one replaces this rule simply by the proper rule
PAB B(PAA) . Thus we obtain a proper version (AP) ' of AP, in which we have
the same reductions as in AP plus some more (such as Pab b(Paa) , a con­
traction not allowed in AP).

3.4.5. PROPOSITION. For a proper definable extension AP of A-calculus there

is a natural (or 'canonical') concept of descendants: namely, every defini­
tion of AP into A (by means of defining reductions for the P^ e P as in
Remark 1.11.2) induces the same descendant concept in XP.

Moreover, this canonical concept of descendants coincides with the

one in Def. 3.4.1.

PROOF. Consider a rule PA,...A -- * Q and a defining reduction = PA. ...A

----- I n ^ I n
— » Q' for some A-term P. Then it is simple to prove (using the properness
condition) that must be in fact

= PA. ..A -» (Ax, .M )A ...A (Ax

1 n 1 1 1 n
---» ... — » (Ax .M )A — » Q' .
n n n
22

(So all A^ (i = 1 ,...,n) are 'eaten'.)

Hence (by Remark 3.3.1.(i)) none of the terms P,PA^/PA^A^/•../PA^...A^
has a descendant in O'. Since this holds for all the P.-reduction rules
l
(P^ e P) and all defining reductions for them, the induced concept of
descendant is therefore the same as the one in Def. 3.4.1. □

3.4.6. REMARK. The properness condition is necessary; for consider the im­
proper rule PABC y Pb (PAA)C and now define the A-term P such that
PAB — » PB(PAA) for all A,B, then in the reduction PABC — » PB(PAA)C we
have PABC PB(PAA)C. So the induced descendant concept does not satis­
fy the property that a P-redex after its contraction leaves no residuals
(and we will need that property later on, to prove the theorem 'Finite
Developments' for AP).

3.4.7. EXAMPLE. Consider in CL the rule (((Sa )B)C) -- »• ((AC) (BC) ) . Accord­
ing to our definition 3.4.1, the subterms (AC), (BC) and ((AC)(BC)) in the
RHS have no ancestors in the LHS, or equivalently, the displayed brackets
in the RHS have no ancestors in the LHS.
The following defining reduction in A for the S-rule shows why this is
so: the brackets in the RHS descend really from brackets "hidden" in the S:

( ( ( S A ) B ) C ) =
0 12 2 1 0
( ( ( ( Aa ( Ab ( Ac ( ( ac ) (be) ) ) ) ) A ) B ) C )
0 12 3 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 7 6 5 3 2 1 0
( ( ( Ab ( Ac ( ( Ac ) (be) ) ) ) B ) C )
0 1 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 7 6 5 1 0
( ( Ac ( ( Ac ) (Be) ) ) C )
0 6 7 8 8 9 9 7 6 0
( ( AC ) (BC) )
7 8 8 9 9 7

Hence the subterms 7, 8, 9 have no ancestors.

3.5. UNDERLINING

(i) Consider A^-calculus as in Definition 3.1 and let A = {0,1}. A no-

tational variant of this reduction system
> is obtained by underlining the
V i ) = <Ter(X{o,i})' P{ ,
subterms having label 1 (ana'only those).

So instead of ((Ax (x ^ q )l>\ (yoZl)0^ 1 we write

 23

((Xx(xx)) (yz)),

and this redex has a contractum:

( (y_z) (yz) ) .

Let X = <Ter(X ), — r*— ► > be this reduction system. Note that there
B *
are infinite reductions, e.g. (Xx.xx)(Xx.xx) B -reduces to itself.
★
(ii) Now we restrict Ter(X ) to the subset of terms where only $-redexes
may be underlined. Let the resulting reduction system be

A** = <Ter(A**), — >,

itit ^
where B is the restriction of B to Ter(X ) c Ter(X ).
(iii) Moreover we add a notational simplification to X , namely 'reduced
underlining'. Since a B-redex is determined by its head-X, it suf­
fices to underline only that X instead of the whole redex.
The resulting system will be called X = <Ter(X), — >, in
— — p
words: underlined X-calculus, underlined B-reduction.
Instead of 'X_(-calculus) ' we will also say: 'X_B_(-calcuius) '.
ic kk
We will not need the auxiliary systems X , X anymore.
An example of a reduction in X_:

(Xa.aa)[ (Xb.b) (Xc.cc)] — ^— ► (Xb.b) (Xc.cc)[(Xb.b) (Xc.cc)]

— r-> — -r-> (Xc .cc) (Xc.cc) , a B-normal form.

—

(iv) Analogous to X_ we define XP, the underlined version of a definable

extension XP of X. The definition is straightforward and will be left
to the reader. Here also we may employ reduced underlining: instead
of PABC, say, write only PABC.

3.6. DEVELOPMENTS

Reductions in X_ or XP give rise to reductions in X or XP, by erasing

the underlinings. Reductions in X or XP which can be obtained in this way,
will be called developments.
In the next section (4) we will prove that X (= SN; or in other words,
24

all developments are finite.

3.7. HYLAND-WADSWORTH LABELS

3.7.0. Again we consider Ter(A ). But now we define a reduction totally

HN
different from — ---- ► as introduced in 3.2; let us call it — ---- *- . It is
PIN PHW
introduced by HYLAND [76] and WADSWORTH [76] and can be considered as a
syntactic counterpart of projection in Scott's models D^, Pu) of the A-cal-
culus; but we will not go into that (for references, see e.g. BARENDREGT
[77]).
Whereas in 3.2 the labels served merely for tracing the descendants in
a reduction, now they play a role of their own. 3 ^-reduction can be con-
HW
veniently defined (as in BARENDREGT [77], but without 0.) by admitting sub­
terms which have multiple labels, e.g. ((Ma)b )C ; possibly no label at all.

HW HW
3.7.1. Ter (A ), the set of A -terms, is defined by
HW
(i) x,y,z,... e Ter(A )
HW HW
(ii) A,B e Ter(A ) => (AB) e Ter(A )
(iii) A e Ter(AHW) => (Ax.A) e TeriX™)
(iv) A e Ter(AHW) => An e Ter(AHW) for all n e 1 .

The multiple labeling is only an auxiliary device; when possible the fol­
lowing simplifying rule will be applied:

.(n ,m)
(Mn )m

HW
for all M e Ter(A ) and n,m e HN . Here (n,m) = minimum {n,m}.
3 -reduction is now defined by
HW

Ux.A)nB --- ► [X := Bn_1]An_1

^HW
HW
for all A,B e Ter(A ) and n > 0.
Here n is called the degree of the redex on the LHS. Note that reduction is
only allowed for redexes of positive degree.
Furthermore, the substitution operator used in the previous definition,
a = [x:=A], is defined as follows:
 25

(i) ax = A, ay = y for x ^ y
(ii) a(AB) = (aA)(aB)
(iii) a(Xy.A) = Xy.aA
(iv) a(An ) = (aA)n .

Note the difference with substitution in 3.2:

there [x:=(...)^] xa =
here Cx:=(...) ] x = ((...) ) -- ► (...)

For an example of a 3 ^ - reduction see the figure on p.26.

3.7.2. REMARKS. (i) In section 7 we will prove by an 'interpretation' of

HW i
X-calculus into Xl-calculus that X |= SN (i.e. 3^. -reduction is strongly
HW
normalizing).
(Notation: we borrow the sign '|= ' from model theory, meaning: '... has the
property...' or: '...satisfies...'.)
(ii) Creation of redexes. One of the key facts in the proof of (i) is that
a redex R of degree d can only create new redexes of degree < d.
p
Here we say that in the step M^ ---- »- a redex R„ c M„ is created
J 0 1 1 - 1
by (the contraction of) R iff no redex R^ c M^ descends to R^. In LEVY
[74,78] it is worked out when such creations happen. There are the following
three cases:

I- ...[(Xx.C[xB]) (Xy.A)]... -- v ...[Ca[(Xy.A)Ba ]]...

II. ...[(Xx.x) (Xy.A)B]... -- ► ...[(Xy.A)B]...
III. ...[(Xx.Xy.A)CB]... --- ► ...[(Xy.Aa )B]...

where a is the substitution [x:=Xy.A], a' is [x:=C] and ], ...[ ]... are
arbitrary contexts. (Ba , ca[ ] stands for a(B), a(C[ ]).)
It is a matter of routine to verify that the degree of the created Xy
redex in the RHS is indeed less than the degree of the Xx redex in the LHS.
(The first occurrence of n-1 in (Xx.A)n B -- > [x:=Bn 1]An 1 causes this de­
creasing effect for creation of type I, II; the second for type III.)

EXAMPLE.

((Xx. (x9I)11)7 (Xy.A)8)10

HW
((((((Xy.A)8)6 )9!)11)6)10 ((Xy.A)'8 '6 '91!)111'6 '101 =

((Xy.A)6!)6 .
26

FIGURE

contracted redex is indicated.

 27

(iii) On the other hand, the redexes R' which d e sc e n d from a redex R in a
3 -reduction (R = M --- >■ ... --- >- M '
HW
U U
R - R '
have the same degree as R.
For a verification of (ii) and (iii) see LEVY [78], p.29-32.
HW
(iv) The system A_ in 3.5 can also be obtained from A . For, consider terms
HW
M in Ter(A ) such that some redexes £ M have label 1 and all the other
subterms in M have label 0; let an underlined term e Ter(A) correspond to
such M as in 3.5. Then 3 -reduction of such terms M corresponds precisely
HW
to a 3-reduction of M.

3.8. Typed \ - c a l c u l u s or AT-calculus is obtained as follows. The labels are

called 'types' here and the set of types t is defined inductively by

(i) O ct
(ii) a,3 € t => (a-*3) e t .

Now we do not work with the whole set Ter(AT ) as defined in 3.1, but with a
subset T of terms subject to the restriction that types must match in the
sense of the following inductive definition:

(i) xa e T for all x e VAR and a e t

a->3 t a -r , a->3 a N3 -r
(n) A e T & B € T => (A B) el
8 T ,, a 3. a-*3 T
(m) A e T => (Ax .A ) el.

3.9. LEVY'S LABELS

Now we turn to a labeled A-calculus introduced in J.J. LfCVY [75,78].

It is a common generalization of all the labeled A-calculiwe have dealt
with sofar. We will refer to it as X1,- c a l c u l u s . It isclosely connected
with the concept of e q u iv a le n c e o f r e d u c t io n s (also introduced in LEVY [78]),
a concept we will comment on later.
The set L of Levy-labels is defined inductively as follows. Let L' be
an infinite set of symbols, L' = {a,b,c,...}. Then define

(i) L' c L
(ii) a,3 c L => a3 e L
(iii) a e L => a e L.

Here a3 is the concatenation of a and 3/ without brackets.

28

The definition of the set Ter(AL ) of AL-terms and of substitution in

XL is mutatis mutandis (i.e. replace HW by L and n e UN by a e L) the same
* ,HW . , _
as for A m 3.7.
Again we simplify multiple labelings whenever possible, now using the
rule:

(m “ )6

for all M e AL and a,B e L:

B -reduction is defined as
L

(Ax.A) a B — --- ► Cx:=B-]A-

BL

for all A,B e Ter(AL ) and a € L. As before, a is called the degree of the
displayed redex. Also as before, it is easily checked that during a reduc­
tion the residuals of a redex R keep the same degree as R. (See LEVY [78].)
There are two differences in our definition as compared to LEVY [75,78];
there underlining and 'overlining' are used (but later Levy remarked that
the latter is not necessary) and secondly, our labels are the mirror image
of those in LEVY [75,78],

3.9.1. EXAMPLES.
a K p p V\pp
(1) ( (Ax. (x I) ) (Ay.A) ) — --->■ — » ((Ay. A) “ I) — (cf. the similar ex-
HW
ample for A above.)
(2) This example is taken from LEVY [75] but in our revised notation:

,,, ,,, , f g.e.d h c b . k e. j,i.a

((Ax.((Ay.(y z ) ) x ) ) (Au.(u u )J) )

f g e d k e j ibh cba
((Ay. (y z r ) ) (Au. (u u ) ) — ) —

... . hdf g.edc b k e j i a

((Ax.(x — z ) — ) (Au.(u u )J) )

V , k exi ibhdf g. edcba

((Au. (u u )J) ---z * ) ----

^gibhdfk gi^hgfe j ihhdf edcba

(z z )

The following remarks are also essentially due to LEVY [75,78].

 29

3.9.2. REMARKS. (1) There is a simple homomorphism from AL to A. (as in 3.1).

. L A
Namely, take L' = A and given a A -term M, erase all but the first symbol
of every label a in M. It is easy to check that this procedure transforms
3 -reductions in 6 -reductions in the sense of 3.1. (Cfr. the examples
L L
just given.)
(2) AL is not SN, but certain restricted forms of it are.
Let P be a predicate on L which is bounded in the sense that the labels a
for which P(a) holds, are bounded in height, i.e.

3n e 3N Va e L(P(a) => h(a) < n) .

Here the height h(a) is defined by

(i) h(a) = 0 for a e L'

(ii) h(a3) = max{h(a),h(3)}
(iii) h(a) = h(a) + 1.

Now restrict 3T-reduction such that contraction of a redex with degree a is

^ L P
only allowed if P(a). Denote the resulting system by A ' , or in case
P(a) <=>h(a) < n, simply by AL 'n .
L P i
Now we have A ' |= SN for bounded P. See LEVY [75,78] for a proof; in sec­
tion 8 we give an alternative proof.
L HW
(3) There is also a "homomorphism" from A to A but not as direct as the
previous one. Let us describe it as follows.
HW HW
Firstly, define A just as A but now allowing also negative labels
Z5
and dropping the restriction that only redexes of positive degree may be
contracted.
Secondly, let f: L -- y 7L satisfy

(i) f(a) e IN for all a e L 1

(ii) f(a3) = min{f(a),f(3)}
(iii) f(oO = f(a) - 1.

Note that h(a) and f(a) are, roughly speaking, opposite in sign:
(*) m-h(a) < f(a) < M-h(a), where m = min (f(a.) I a. e a} and
l 1 i
M = max{f(a^) | a^ e a}. We leave the proof of (*) to the reader.
(**) Now we have for every f satisfying (i), (ii), (iii) above a homomorphism
from AL to A ^ , namely by replacing every label in a reduction in AL by
ZZi
f (a) .
30

Moreover one easily proves:

3.9.3. PROPOSITION. The f o llo w in g a re e q u iv a l e n t :

,.x ,HW | „
(1 ) A |= SN
HW
(ii) I n e v e r y i n f i n i t e r e d u c t io n in A a re d e x o f d e g re e < 0 i s c o n t r a c t e d .
HW
(iii) I n e v e r y i n f i n i t e r e d u c t io n in A^ th e s e t o f d e g r e e s o f c o n t r a c t e d
re d e x e s i s unbounded from b elo w .
(iv) I n e v e r y i n f i n i t e r e d u c t io n in AL th e s e t (h(a) | a i s d e g re e o f a
c o n t r a c t e d r e d e x } i s unbounded from a b o v e .
(v) AL 'n |= SN f o r a l l n e 3N .
L P i
(vi) A ' |= SN f o r a l l bounded p r e d ic a t e s P.

PROOF. By using (*), (**) in the proof of (iii) <=> (iv) and noticing for
HW
(ii) =» (iii) that given a reduction in A , the reduction <R' obtained by
^ HW
adding a fixed n e HN to all the labels in <R, is again a reduction in A . □

The figure on p.31 summarizes this section (without definable exten­

sions) .

4. FINITE DEVELOPMENTS

4.0. INTRODUCTION

A 3-reduction is as we remarked in section 3, a special kind of 3

HW
reduction. Since 3^-reduction has the property SN (as we will prove in
section 8), ^-reductions are therefore strongly normalizing too. This is the
theorem of 'Finite Developments' (FD).
However, we will give another proof of FD in this section, because:
HW i
(a) it is much simpler than the proof of A |= SN,
(b) it generalizes without effort to FD for some extensions of A-calculus
such as A3n^-calculus (see BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP, VOLKEN [76]),
(c) it generalizes at once to FD for definable extensions (hence also for
CL), and
HW i
(d) our proof strategy is such that we need FD to prove A |= SN
(see p.32):
31
32

FD for definable
extensions
(sect. 4)

(sect.5)

Church.Rosser Church's theoren i Interpretation

theorem for de­ for definable of A-calculus
finable exten­ & extensions of & in Al-calculus
sions of A-cal- Al-calculus (sect.8)
culus (sect.5) (sect.7)

(sect.8)
V

4.1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

(i) If E is a 'reduction system', such as A, Al, AP, or CL (in Chapter II

we will consider a general concept of 'reduction system') then E_ denotes
the corresponding underlined reduction system, as defined in 3.5.
(ii) We remind the reader that an essential feature of E_ is that in ^-reduc­
tions there is no creation of E-redexes; e.g. in a Ag-reduction (R =
R0 Rj _
= M — M — -— ... every contracted g-redex R. = (Ax.A.)B. (i = 0,1,...)
O p 1 ii 1 1 1
is a descendant of some B-redex in M^. (There can be B-redexes created,
but no ^-redexes.)
(iii) Let (R be a E_-reduction and (R' be the corresponding ^-reduction, ob­
tained by erasing the underlining in <R. Then (R is called a (E-) development.
The theorem that we will prove now, asserts that for E = A, Al, AP,
CL all developments are finite.
Notation: E |= FD. Note that by definition, this is equivalent to: E_ |= SN.
(iv) The method that is going to be used in the proof below is taken from
BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP, VOLKEN [76]. Given a development
 33

<R 0 1
to each symbol s e a weight |s | £ U is asso-
dated. During the reduction (R,
every symbol keeps its weight unchanged.
The assignment of weights is such that the total’weight |m J (:= 1seMi Is |)
of the e (R (i = 0,1,...) decreases:

Before giving the actual proof, we need some definitions. Throughout

the proof, E is a definable extension of A-calculus, having P as set of con­
stants .

4.1.1. DEFINITION. Let Pe P have the reduction rule:

PV ' - An --- ^ Q(A1.... V -

(i) The multiplicity of A^ (i = 1 ,. .. ,n) in Q, mult(A^), is the number of

occurrences of A. in Q.
l
(ii) m(P) = max{mult(A^) | i = l,...,n}.
(iii) m = max{m(P) | Pe P} + 1.

4.1.2. EXAMPLE. Let E be X + CL + {PABC --- ► P(AAACC)BB>. So

P- = {IfKfS,P}, m(I) = 1 , m(K) = 1 , m(S) = 2, m(P) = 3 and m = 4. This will
be our working example during the proof.

4.1.3. DEFINITION, (i) Let be the underlined version of E.

(In our example, E_ = _A + CL + {PABC --- > P(AAACC)BB}. The set of constants
P of E is { 1 , 1 , K , K , S , S , P , P } and the reduction rules are

(Ax.A (x) )B --- ► A (B)

IA --- >■ A, KAB --- ^ A, SABC --- ► AC (BCl
PABC --- > P (AAACC) BB.)

(ii) E„ is defined as follows.

—W
Ter(E ) is obtained from Ter(E) by adding natural numbers as labels to some
w —
of the symbols of E_-terms. These labels will be called weights and will be
written as superscripts.

Reduction in E^ is just E_-reduction where the weights are taken along, in

the sense of Definition 3.2 (I.e. each symbols keeps its own weight during
34

the reduction and the presence of weights does not affect the allowed re­
ductions .)

4.1.4. EXAMPLE.
_ ,, 6 7w r,8 2or,..3
= (Ax.x x )(P y PPy )

le
M2 = P8y2PPy3 (P8y2PPy3)

IP
m3 = P(y2y2y2PP)y3y3 (P8y2PPy3).

4.1.5. NOTATION AND DEFINITION.

(i) E -terms will also be written as M1 where M is a E-term and I is M's
—W —
weight assignment (so I is a partial map from Symb (M) to 3N ) ■
(ii) if s 6 M, then |s| = I(s) , the weight of s. We put |s| = 0 if s has
no weight (I(s) undefined).
(iii) if W c m is a subword of M (i.e. a sequence of consecutive symbols in
M) then

|w| = I Is|. '

seW
2 3
E.g. in the example above |M^| = 2 6 and |y PPy | = 5.

4.1.6. ----------
DEFINITION. Let M1 be a —WE -term.
(i) Let R £ M be a 3_-redex. Then R = (A_x.A)B is called good w.r.t. I iff
|xI > IB| for every occurrence of x in A.
(ii) Let R c M be a P-redex for some P e P. Then R = Pa „...A is called
— — — I n
good w.r.t. I iff |P| > mlA^.-.A^I where m is as in Definition
4.1.1(iii).
(iii) M1 is called good if every (B_- or P-)redex in M is good w.r.t. I.

4.1.7. EXAMPLE. In example 4.1.4, the j^-redex nor the P-redex in M^ is good
w.r.t. the displayed weight assignment.
„ M 24 30 ,D18 2VTf 3x .
However, M^ = (Ax.x x ) (r_ y rry ) is good.

4.1.8. ------------
PROPOSITION. Let M e Ter(E).
— Then there is a good M 1 e Ter(E„).
— vv

PROOF. Let M = s^...s_^...s^s^s^ where s^ is the i-th symbol from the right,
and define the weight assignment I by I(s ) = |s_^ | = (m+1) , for i = 0 ,...,£.
Then, since
 35

(m+1)1+1-1 2
= 1 + (m+1)+ (m+1) (m+1)'
(m+1)-1

we have

(m+l)1+1 > m(l + (m+l) +. ..+ (m+1) ).

So > m hence a fortiori

Si+1 1 sisi - r - - so'

(i) every x free in A c (Ax.A)B is heavier than B (since m > 1 and B is

to the right of x) and
(ii) every P e P is at least m times heavier than the total of its arguments

V " " V
Therefore M1 is a good E -term. □
—W

4.1.9. PROPOSITION. Let <R = MQ -- ► -- ► ... be a E- reduction. Let

M_^ e Ter(E ) . Then there is a corresponding E -reduction (R ^ =
0 ! -Wj -w
= Mo " •

PROOF. It follows at once from the definitions that every step in E^ can be
’lifted' to the case where extra labels (in casu weights) are present. □

4.1.10. MAIN LEMMA.

(i) Let M^° be a good Z^ -term, and let M( M< be a E, -reduction step.
-W 0 1 -W
Then M„ is a good Er-term.
1 —W
(ii) Moreover,

PROOF. First the easiest part of the lemma, (ii) . Let R be the redex con-
x0 I1
tracted in the step M^ -- »■ M^ and let R' c m ^ be the contractum of R.
I0
CASE 1. R is a 3,-redex. Say R = (Xx....x...x...)B. Since M^ is good, R is
good w.r.t. 1^, i.e. every occurrence of x is heavier than B, so
IR'| = |...B...B...| < |R|.
If there is no occurrence of x, also |R'| < |r |, since B disappears.

CASE 2. R is a P-redex Pa ....A . Since R is good w.r.t. I_, |P| > m|A....A |.
------ — — I n 0 — I n
Moreover, the multiplying effect of V_ is smaller than m. Therefore
IR* I < Ir I.
36

Hence

(i) We have to show that every or P-redex is again good w.r.t. I .

Let the redex Rq £ M q be the ancestor of R^. Clearly Rq is also an un­
derlined redex. We will treat only the non-trivial cases.
As above R £ M q is the contracted redex, and R ' £ its contractum.

CASE 1. R £ Rq .
1.1. R q is a j^-redex and the or P-redex R is a subterm of its argument:

R q " (Xx.A)C[R] for some context <E[ ].

J or P
R1 E Ux.A)<E[R'].

Now |(C[R] | > |<C[R'] |. Since M q ^ is good, for every occurrence of x in A we

have |x| > |c [r ]|. Hence in R^ also for every x in A: |x| > |<E[R']|. So R^
is good w.r.t. 1^.

1.2. Rq is a P-redex and R is subterm of one of its arguments:

r_ e Pa ....A___A (l<j<n)
0 — 1 inU n
|B. or P C[R]
r, s Pa ...A'. ...A
1 — 1 >»i] n
c [r '].

A similar reasoning as in case 1.1 applies.

CASE 2 . R q £ R
2.1. Rq is a ]3-redex, R is a j3-redex and R substitutes something in the ar­
gument of:

R = [Xy.-- ((Xx.A(y))B(y))---!]C

|6 ' *0
R' = -- (Xx.A(C)
>B3---- „)B(C)
--- „)---

Now in R for all y in A(y) ,B(y) we have |y| > |c|, hence I B (y) | > |B(C)|.
Furthermore, for all x in A(y) we have |x| > |B(y)|.
 37

Hence in R^: |x| > |B(C)|.

So is good w.r.t. 1^ .

2.2. Rq is a P-redex, R is a 3j-redex and R substitutes something in one or

more of the arguments of Rq :

R = [Ay.-- (PA (y)...A (y))— ]C

%— i n >•
Ro
r '= — (Pa (c ) ...a (c )) —
cr_l___^___ a_<
R!
Here in R: |y| > |c| and |P| > m|A^(y)...A^(y)|.
Hence in R 1: |P| > m|A.(C)...A (C)|. So R. is still good w.r.t. I . □
— 1 n 1 1

4.1.11. THEOREM. (Finite Developments)

Let E be a definable extension of \-calculus. Then E |= FD (i.e. |= SN) .

PROOF. Let <R be a ^-reduction, (R = -- > ... By Proposition 4.1.8

M has a good weight assignment I_. By Proposition 4.1.9 <R can be extended
0 Io I1 0
to a Er -reduction M_ -- >• M. -- * ...
—W 0 1
By Lemma 4.1.10 we have

Hence <R is finite. □

4.1.12. REMARK. Note that the above proof yields the following bonus: Every
development of M e Ter(X) has at most 2m steps, where m is the length of M
in symbols.

4.2. FAST DEVELOPMENTS

This concept is introduced for use in Chapter II. Instead of evaluating

(Ax....x .A(x„,...,x ))B....B to A(B.,...,B ) in n steps, we can proceed
1 n 1 n l n 1 n
faster by performing such a reduction in one step.

4.2.1. DEFINITION. m
AB -calculus (m for 'many') is defined as AB-calculus,
but with the 3-reduction rule replaced by the rules (for all n > 1)

3 : (Ax ...x .A(x ,...,x ))B. ...B -► A(B ,. ..,B )

n l n l n l n 1 n
38

4.2.2. DEFINITION. A3 , underlined A3 -calculus, is defined like A3 (un-

---------- — m m —
derlined A3-calculus). That is:

(i) only 3n~redexes (n>l) may be underlined. Notation:

R = (Ax....x .A)B,...B is a 3 -redex. If here A = Ay....y_ .A' we
1____ n 1 n —n 1 k
may write R as (Ax, ...x y„ ...y, .A ') B, ...B .
1____ n l k 1 n
(ii) Only 3 -redexes (n>l) may be contracted in A3 -
—n — m
(iii) Reductions in A3 are called 'fast developments'.
— m

4.2.3. EXAMPLE. (Axyz.xxzz) IIII —-z— >■ (Az.IIzz)II is a reduction in A3 to

------- --- 3m — m
a 3 -normal form.
—m

4.2.4. REMARK. The extension to A3P (definable extensions of A3 ) and

------ m m
A3P / or AP and AP for short, is straightforward.
---m m — m

4.2.5. THEOREM. (Finite fast developments)

AP \= FD (I.e. AP J= SN) .
m 1 — m 1

PROOF. Entirely similar to 4.1. □

4.3. AN ALTERNATIVE PROOF OF FD FOR AP.

4.3.0. The following proof of AP f= FD is due to HYLAND [73]. We include it

here (omitting some details) in order to give some extra information about
developments which we need in Chapter II.
In this subsection we will omit the P of AP; the extension of the re­
sults below from A to AP is entirely straightforward.

4.3.1. DEFINITION. Let the 'disjointness property' (DP) be defined as fol­

lows :
For every reduction = M -- ► .. . -- ► M' and every subterm S c m the
descendants S^,...,S^ c m ' (n>0) of S are pairwise disjoint.

4.3.2. REMARK.
(i) A3 | D P . For, let S contain x as free variable (S^x) and consider

M E (Ay.yy) (Ax.S (x)) -- > (Ax.S (x) ) (Ax.S (x)) -- >• S (Ax.S (x) ) = M' .

(ii) Trivially CL f=DP, since there is no substitution in CL.

 39

Next we will prove that A_3 \= DP, i.e. the disjointness property holds
for developments <R. Before we do that, we show that the finiteness of devel­
opments (FD) follows almost immediately from this fact. This observation is
due to Silvio Micali (personal communication).

4.3.3. LEMMA (Micali). A_B f= DP => A8 |= FD.

PROOF. Consider M e —A3 in which —0

----- A A
—n are the head-A's of the underlined
redexes. We will refer to the subscripts 0,...,n as 'colors1. Note that in
M all colors are different.
(k)
Now let a development (R = M --- ► M' -- >■ ... -- ► M -- >■ ... be given.
(k)
In every M e we will attach superscripts to the A_-occurrences
(i e {0,...,n}) as follows. Let A^ be such an occurrence and let R be the
redex having A_^ as head-symbol. Let d (=d(A^)) be the number of different
colors of A_ 's contained in R. Then d is the superscript attached to R's
head-symbol A_^. We will call d the 'color degree' of A^.

(k)
EXAMPLE. Let in M the inclusion relations between the A .-redexes be as
in the figure, where A,* means that the A .-redex => the A.-redex.

Then the color degrees are as indicated in the figure; e.g. the one
occurrence of A^ has c°l°r degree 5 since the A_^-redex contains the five
colors 0,1,2,4,5.

Note that by DP, a color cannot contain

di dj
itself, so A. c A . =>d. <d..
-i “ ~3 i 3

Now assign to M ^ the multi-set (see

Def.6.4.1. below) of the color degrees
(k)
+ 1 of all the A_.-occurrences in M ,
0 0 in the example: <6,3,3,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1>,
—2 —2
and consider the effect on this multi­
set of contracting, say, A_^. Then in the multiset of M^k+^ the number
d(A.)+l(i = 0,1,2,4,5) may increase after the contraction, they must re-
—i
main < 6, regardless what happens exactly with those A_ . E.g. the residuals
of the A -redex can after the contraction at most contain the four colors
0,1,2,4 (not 5 itself by DP).
40

Hence by Prop.6.4.2 after the contraction we have a lower multiset

w.r.t. the well-ordering there defined, and so the development must ter­
minate . n
Now we will turn to the proof of DP for developments. In fact we ob­
tain more. 4.4.4 - 4.4.6 are due to HYLAND [73]. (We are going into some
detail, since afterwards we want to extend the results below to fast devel­
opments .)

4.3.4. DEFINITION. Let M e Ag. On Sub(M) , the set of sub term occurrences of
ic kk
M, we define the following two relations c and c
(1) c is defined by:
*
(i) C c D => C c D (c is the strict (or proper) subterm relation)
(ii) if C, D are subterms of an underlined redex
(Ax..... D(x)....)(— C— ) such that x e FV(D), then C c * d
*
(iii) c is transitive.

(2) c is defined by:

k
C c d <=» for some development M -- ► ... -- »- M' and some descen­
dants C', D' c M' of C, resp. D we have C' c D'.

4.3.5. PROPOSITION. Let M e A3 and M M'.

----------- — B. * *
Let C ',D ' c m ' be some descendants of C,D c M. Then C ' c d ' => C c D.

PROOF. If C' c D' in virtue of clause (i), then it is easy to see that
•k
C c D in virtue of clause (i) or (ii).
If C' c D' in virtue of (ii), then M' = (Ax.— D'(x)— )(— C'— )—
and now there are 2 cases:

CASE 1. M = — ((Ax.— D(x)— )(— C— )) — : then C <=* D by clause (ii) .

CASE 2 . M E — [[Xy.--( (Xx.— D(x) — ) (— y— )) — ][— C— ]] —

E
k k k
Then D E C, hence D C.
(Since x e FV(D) there are no other cases to consider.)
•k
Finally, the case that C' c D' by clause (iii), is trivial to deal
with, n
4.3.6. LEMMA (Hyland). Let M e A3_.
(i) For all C,D c M (D^x):

C c* D <=> C c** D.
 41

k
(ii) c is a strict partial ordering (p.o.) on Sub(M).
(iii) Likewise for <=**.

PROOF. (i) =>. Suppose C c D and D is not a variable. (That D is not allow­
ed to be a variable is because C c x is possible, but never C <=** x since
an x has no descendants after a substitution for x.)
Then in fact, say,

D E n 5 D 3 D C
’(ii) °1 (i) 2 (ii) (ii) k

for some chain of applications of clauses (i) or (ii) . Now, drawing a figure
of the term-formation tree of M and looking for a few moments at the chain
D, D ,. ..,C in it, it is intuitively entirely clear that there is a devel­
opment at the end of which one has C' c d ' for some residuals C', D' of C,D.
The formal proof, however, is rather tedious since it involves a lot
of checking of simple details. The proof will be given using induction to
k, the number of 'steps' in the displayed chain from D to C.
k
CASE 1. Let the first 'step', from to , be a 13 -application. Let
R e (Ax...Dq (x )..)(..Dj..) be the corresponding underlined redex. Then af­
ter contraction of R the original chain D^,...,C is transformed into a
chain D^,...,C as follows:
III

D =3 o (-T-.> denotes
o

TO (ii) (i) ?2 ""(ii)’“"^(ii)

1 1 1 the descendant
1 1 1
Ax! relation w.r.t.
1 V 1 l
1 1 contraction of the
, * * k
o D' d; e c
Do ^(i) Di (i) 2 (ii) " D (ii) k Ax-redex)

where each (i)- or (ii)-step is carried over in a similar step except the
first step; so in the latter chain D^,...,C there are less (ii)-steps.
k k
CASE 2. The situation o D< => .v . ..C where D. f. x, the bound variable
------ 0 (l) 1 (n) 1 ^ ±
of the underlined redex R corresponding to the step ^ °2 '
k k ' '
Then also the first => -step becomes a =>,. -step after contraction of R
(n ) (i)
and the other steps stay similar.
Otherwise we have:
42

C
(i) (ii)

Xx.

1 i i
* *
D' = ... c
Do 3 (i)

etcetera.
*
SO, by induction to the number of => -steps in D => .. => C we are
(n)
through.
(In order to prove the assertions in 'Case 1' and 'Case 2 ', one has
to check the propositions

Xx *
—
A => B E x and A B and x f A B
(ii) (ii)
J 1 i j i 1

Xx | Xx | Xx | Xx | Xx | Xx |

i i V Xx^ V V i

m
A' 3B ' A' 3b A'

PQ
o

III
CQ
3 '

i.e. for all A,A',B as in the diagram, there exists B' as in the diagram.)
This ends the proof of (i) =>.
** _
(i) <=: Suppose C c D, i.e. there is a development R: M = -- >• — ■* ...
E M' and descendants C', D' c m ' of C,D £ M such that C' c d '.
Now use induction on the number of steps in <R. The basis of the induc­
tion is trivial. Further, there are C", D" £ , descendants from C,D £ M^,
and having descendants C',D' £ M' such that C' c D'. So by induction hypo-
"k k
thesis C' c D'. Hence by Prop. 4.3.5 C c d .
(ii) Immediately. Notice that:

*
C C D the head-symbol of C is to the left of the head-symbol
of D.

kk kk k k
(iii) We have only to show that c is transitive. So let C c E c D.
*k'
k
Then E f x, hence we can apply (i) and get C c D. □

4.3.7. COROLLARY. Xg f= DP.

PROOF. Since c** is a strict p.o., we have for no C,C c** c. That is: DP. □
 43

_ .. *
4.3.8. REMARK. In HYLAND [73] c is written as >. Lemma 4.3.6 is used there
to prove FD as follows. Define for each underlined redex R in M e A8_ the
degree d(R) by

d(R) = max{d(R') | R 1 3* R} + 1

(the R' are underlined redexes in M) and assign to M the multiset of the
d(R) for all underlined redexes R in M. This multiset is argued to decrease
(w.r.t. the well-ordering in Prop. 6.4.2) during a development. This argu­
ment, however, seems incomplete since there is a complication due to the
k
fact that the p.o. c need not be a tree (see figure below), like c is.
The complication can be avoided however by using instead of d(R):

d '(R) = m a x { d ’(R’) | R' c* r } + l.

EXAMPLE. The p.o. (w.r.t. c ) of underlined redexes R in M plus degrees

d'(R).

For 'fast' developments (reductions in AS , see 4.2) we have analogous

definitions of c and c :
m m

4.3.9. ---------------------------—
DEFINITION. Let M e —Afmt . Then for C,D c M:

(i) C c D =» C c* D
m
(ii) if C,D are subterms of an underlined redex

(Axy. ... D(x.)...)A.A .A___ A

— 1 1 2 i n
U|
c

where x = x„,...,x (some n>l), y = y, ,...,y (some m>0), i some num-

1 n 1 m
ber such that 1 < i < n and x. e FV(D), then C c d .
* * * 1 m
(iii) C c Ec D = > C c D.
m m m
44

The definition of c carries over immediately from Def. 4.3.4.(ii).

m
Likewise Prop. 4.3.5 and Lemma 4.3.6, as the reader may check.
Hence the following fact, needed in Ch.II:

4.3.10. ---------
COROLLARY. —ABm i1= DP. □

5. ABSTRACT REDUCTION SYSTEMS

In this section we define some properties of 'abstract' reduction

systems (i.e. replacement systems in the sense of STAPLES [75]) and state
some simple facts about them, for the most part well-known. This is done
only in as far we need those definitions and facts in the sequel; we are
not primarily interested here in abstract reduction systems and their
properties for their own sake. For the latter, see e.g. HUET [78], STAPLES
[75], HINDLEY [69,74].
Part of this section (5.16,5.17,5.18) is for use in Chapter II, the
remark about 'conservative extensions' (5.10,5.11) is referred to in Chapter
III.
We start with some definitions and notations (a few of them occurred
already above, but are repeated for the sake of completeness).

5.1. DEFINITION. (1) An abstract reduction system (ARS) is a structure

A= <A, —-— >a£l consisting of some set A and some sequence of binary re­
lations — (ael) , called reduction relations.
(2) Mostly we will be interested in ARS's A= <A, -- »- > having only one re­
duction relation.
These are called replacement systems in STAPLES [75].
(3) --- » is the transitive reflexive closure of --
—1 »- is the reflexive closure of -- ►,
= is the 'convertibility' relation (i.e. the equivalence relation)
generated by -- > .
Likewise --- », — — ►, = for ---
a a a a
Identity of elements of A is denoted by =.
(4) The converse relation of —-— »■ is denoted by or by —_p> .
(5) --- ► u — — > is denoted by — -— ► .
a B aB

5.2. DEFINITION. (1) Let a,B be reduction relations on A. Then a ® B (a

commutes weakly with B) iff
 45

i
3 i 3

__i
a

where the dotted arrows have the usual existential meaning, i.e.:
Va,b,c e A 3d e A (c a --- => c ------» d n— b) .
3 a a 3
Further, a commutes with 3 iff -- » ® — r-».
a 3
(2) The reduction relation -- > is called 'weakly Church-Rosser' (WCR) iff
--- »■ is weakly self-commuting:

I
i
1------------
i.e. Va,b,c 3d (c <--- a --- > b => c -- *> d « -- b) .
(3) y is called subcommutative (as in STAPLES [77]), notation WCR” 1, iff

---------------L
1 —

vli___ =___

i.e. Va,b,c 3d(c a — >- b => c —1—> d -«— — b) .

(4 ) --- >■ has the Church-Rosser property (* is C R 1) iff

■---------
i

4 -------

i.e. Va,b,c 3d (c « -- a -- » b => c -- » d « -- b) .

(5) Let A= <A,---► , — — * >. Then
a p
A 1= PP
a , p
(Postponement of 3*s after a's)
iff for all a,a* e A:

a — r*> a 1 =» 3b e A a -- *> b — -» a 1.
a3 a 3

5.3. PROPOSITION. Let A= <A, — >> be an ARS. Then the following are equiv­
alent-.
46

(i) -- > is CR
(ii) — » is WCR (weakly self-commuting)
(iii) — » is self-commuting
<1
(iv) — » is WCR
(v) pp
(vi)

i.e. Va,b,c 3d (c -< a — » b => c — » d « — b)

(vii) Va,b 3c (a=b =► a — » c « — b)
(= is the equivalence relation generated by -- »■)

PROOF. The equivalence of (i),...,(iv) follows at once from the definitions.

The proof of the remaining equivalences is routine. □

5.4. REMARK, (vi) is called 'property C' in NEWMAN [42]. Cfr. also the "Strip
Lemma' in BARENDREGT [76]. (vii) is often used as definition of the CR-
property.
In NEWMAN [42], HUET [78] a CR reduction relation is called 'confluent'.

5.5. PROPOSITION. Let A = <A,- Let a commute with 3 *. Then A |= PP

a,fc

PROOF. It suffices to prove that » and ■— » can be interchanged:

This follows at once from the

J5 hypothesis that a commutes with
r 1. □
5.6. DEFINITION. Let A = <A,— > >.
(1) a e A is a normal form (w.r.t.-- iff i3b e A a b. b e A has a nor­
mal form iff 3a e A a is nf & b — » a.
(2) A |= WN ( »- is weakly normalizing) iff every a e A has a nf.
(3) A |= SN ( >■ is strongly normalizing) iff every reduction in A termi­
nates. (In HUET [78]: -- ► is noetherian.)
(4) A |= UN (unicity of normal forms) iff

Va,b e A (a,b are nf & a=b => a=b) .

 47

(5) A |= NF (normal form property) iff

Va,b e A (a is nf & a=b => b — » a) .

In the following lemma some sufficient conditions for the CR property are
given.

5.7. LEMMA. Let A |= <A,-- »■ >. Then the following implications hold:
(1) (Newman) SN & WCR => CR.
(2) WN & UN => CR.
<1
(3) WCR => CR
(4) (Hindley, Rosen) Let -- »■ be - u . Suppose commutes with a_.
for all i,j e {1,2} (so in particular the are self-commuting, i.e.
CR) .

Then -- ► is CR.
(Analogously for -- ► = U ^ a_^.)

PROOF.
(1) See NEWMAN [42]; or for a shorter proof, HUET [78].
(2) Let reductions a — » b and a — » c be given. By WN b,c have normal
forms b' resp. c'. By UN b'Ec'. So

a---»b
| l
c--- » c 'Eb'

(3) Easy.
(4) Easy (see e.g. STAPLES [75]). D

5.8. REMARK. Note that WCR A CR, as is shown by the ARS defined as in Figure
1 of 5.9. Figures 2,3,4 give similar counterexamples. Now the following
question arises. First we define for n,m > 1:

<n
A 1= WCR ->>
i
iff
1 n ,m
<m
+

<n
where --- » denotes a reduction of at most n steps. (So WCR = WCR.) The
1/1
above mentioned counterexamples show WCR . A CR. Question: WCR A CR
48

for all n,m > 1? Indeed one can find for every n,m > 1 an A such that
A 1= WCR but A f/ CR. Figure 5 gives an A where WCR0 is satisfied but
n ,m A /2.
not WCR .
In fact, one can find all sorts of 'logically possible' counterexamples,
2
in the following sense. Call a set B c 3N+ closed iff (n,m) e B =» (m,n) e B
and (n+1 ,m) e B => (n,m) e B. (Here 3N+ = 3N - {0} -) Define
WCR(A) := { (n,m) e 3N2 I A |= WCR }; so WCR(A) measures 'how CR' A is.
+ 1 1 n,m
(Example: for A in figure 6 we have W CR (A) as in figure 7 of 5.9.) Obvious­
ly WCR (A) is closed, and:

A |= CR «=»
o
WCR (A) = U + «=»

Vn e U + (1 ,n) e WCR(A) <=»

WCR (A) is infinite.

2
Now let an arbitrary finite closed B c be given. Then (we claim with­
out proof) one can construct an A such that W CR (A) = B.

EXAMPLES. (In the following figures the direction of the reduction ar­
rows, when not indicated, is always to the right and/or downwards.)

Figure 1
 49

Figure 2 Figure 3

5 o o o o

2-i • • \ o °

-©■
3 4 J 5

w c r (A)

Figure 5 Figure 7
50

5.10. DEFINITION.
(1) Let A = <A,— >. A is consistent iff ^ A x a , i.e. not every pair
of elements is convertible.
(2) Let A = <A,-^-> > and B = <B,-^-* >.
Then A c B (B is an extension of A, or: A is a substructure of B) iff
(i) A c B
(ii) - > = restriction of -- >• to A. i.e.
A B

Va,a' e A (a — -> a' <=> a — * a') .

B A

(iii) A is closed under — — i.e.

B

Va e A (a >b => b € A) .
B

(3) Let A c B. B is a conservative extension of A iff

Va,a' e A (a =B a' <=> a a') .

REMARK. Note that a conservative extension B of a consistent A is again

consistent.

The next theorem gives some important consequences of the CR property.

5.11. THEOREM.
(1) Let A = <A,-- >■ > and let there be two distinct normal forms in A. Then :
A |= CR => A is consistent.
(2) CR => UN
(3) CR => NF
(4) Let A c B. Then: B |= CR =* B is a conservative extension of A.

The proofs are very elementary and will be omitted.

We will now make a remark about cofinality (see also §12). First some
definitions.

5.12. DEFINITION.
- . Let A = <A,-- ► > be an ARS and a £ A. Let A_a = {b|a — » b}
and -- »- be the restriction of -- > to A .
a a
Then the reduction graph of a, G(a), is the ARS <A ,-- ► >.
a a
(In STAPLES [75] G(a) is called the 'local system below a'.)
 51

5.13. DEFINITION. Let A = <A,-- ► > be an ARS.

(i) Let X ,Y c A. Then Y is cofinal in X iff Y c X and Vx c X 3y e Y x — » y.
(ii) A |= CP ('A has the cofinality property') iff in every reduction graph
G(a) (aeA) there is a cofinal reduction sequence (R: a = a^ -- ► a^ -- >- ...
(finite or infinite).
I.e. :

Vb € G(a) 3a e <R b — » a .
n n

5.14. THEOREM. Let A = <A,-- ► > be a countable ARS. Then:

A |= CP <=> A |= CR.

PROOF. (=>) Suppose a — » b and a — » c. By CP there is a cofinal

(R: a = a -- > a. > ... in G(a) . Hence b — » a and c — » a for some n,m.
0 1 n m
Say n < m. Then a is a common reduct of b, c. Hence CR holds.
2 m
(<=) Let a^ e A and consider G(A^) . By hypothesis, G(aq ) is countable: say
G(a^) == {a^Jn e }. (The case that G(ag) is finite is easy.) Now define a
sequence {bn ln e 3N } c G(aQ ) , by induction on n:

bo H ao
the first common reduct of b and a „ in the sequence
bn+l n n+1 ^

Then {b I n e B } is cofinal in G(a_), and yields a cofinal reduction se-

n1 0
quence b^ — » b^ — » ... (after interpolation of reduction steps between
b. and b , k > 0) . □
k k+1

5.15 REMARK, (i) The restriction to countable ARS's is essential for the
implication CR => CP. A counterexample for uncountable ARS's is obtained
by taking A = <A,-> -- <a,<> where a is an ordinal in which the ordinal
a) is not cofinal.
(ii) Let A = <A, »- > be an ARS and define K c A tD be a reduction chain
iff

Va,b e K (a — »b V b — a) .

Furthermore, let us call CP' the property obtained by replacing in Defini­

tion 5.13 of CP 'reduction sequence' by 'reduction chain1.
52

Now it is an easy exercise to prove that for countable A, CP •$=> CP'.

Also now, however, the restriction to countable ARS's is essential for
the implication CR => CP'. For, consider the following uncountable counter­
example: let A' be an uncountable set and let A = {X c a ' | X finite}. Then
A= <A, ► > = <A,c> is an ARS such that A |= CR. But: for every reduction
chain K c a , the union U K (= U X) is countable. Hence if a e A' - U K ,
XeK
then for no X e K one has {a} c x (i.e. {a} — » X). Therefore K is not co­
final in G(0) = A.

Although the next two items are for use in Chapter II, we include them
here since they also apply to abstract reduction systems.

5.16. DEFINITION. Let A= <A,-- ► >.

(1) A is inductive (as in HUET [78]) iff for every reduction aQ — >a ►
-- ► (finite or infinite) there is some a e A such that a — » a
2 n
for all n. Notation: |= Ind. A
(2) A is increasing iff there is a map | |: A -- ► 3N such that for all
a,b e A:

a -- ► b => |a | < |b |.

Notation: A (= Inc.
(3) A is well-founded iff there are no 'infinite descending -- ►-chains'
.... -- y a^ -- y -- ► a^ -- ► aQ . (Equivalently, iff
= -<-- is SN.) Notation: A |= WF.
(4) A is finitely branching iff for all a e A the set of immediate reducts
of a, (b e A | a ► b}, is finite. Notation: A |= FB. (In HUET [78],
FB = 'locally finite'.) Further, we write A |= FB iff is FB.

5.17. LEMMA.
(1) Ind & Inc => SN (Nederpelt)
(2) Inc => WF
(3) WN & UN => Ind
(4) WF & FB_ => Inc.

PROOF. (1) Suppose a^ -- y a^ -- y a^ -- y ... is an infinite reduction. By

Ind there is an a such that a^ — » a for all n. By Inc there is a norm | |
such that |a I < |a 1 < |a | < ... But also |a | < |a| for all n. Contra­
diction.
 53

(2) Trivial.
(3) A finite reduction trivially has a 'bound', namely the last element.
So consider an infinite reduction a^ -- ► a^ -- > -- * • -• By WN there are
normal forms a' of a for all n. By UN all the a' are identical. Hence
n n J n

(4) Let A = <A,--»- > satisfy WF and FB Let a £ A and consider

X = {b | b — » a}.
a -1
By Konigs Lemma, WF and FB imply that X^ is finite. Now define for
all a e A: |a| = card. X . By our previous remark, Ia I e U . Moreover, if
a
a -- »■ a' then |a| < |a'| (for, a' e X^ is impossible since then a reduction
cycle a' — » a — > a' would arise, contradicting WF) . Hence A |= Inc. □

REMARKS. Ad (1): in a less explicit form this proposition occurs in

NEDERPELT [73]. In Chapter II we will extensively deal with the method in­
troduced by NEDERPELT [73] to reduce the property SN to WN, for some systems.
Ad(3), (4): in Chapter II we will prove that for certain 'Combinatory
Reduction Systems' as defined there, one has Inc = WF and FB * = NE, where
NE is the property 'non-erasing' (like e.g. the Al-calculus).

Finally, we will show that the property Inc entails (in the presence
of WCR) the equivalence of SN and WN, a topic which will interest us espe­
cially in Chapter II. First we will prove a more general fact.

5.18. THEOREM. Let G(a) be as in Def. 5.12 and suppose:

(1) G(a) |= WCR, and
(2) a has a normal form b such that the length of reductions a — » b is
bounded (i.e. 3n £ IN Vft: a — » b |ft] < n, where ]ft| is the number of
steps in ft) .

Then: G(a) |= UN & CR & SN.

PROOF. SN & WCR => CR and CR =► UN, so only to prove: G(a) |= SN.
Suppose not so. Then there is an infinite reduction
ft: a = aQ -- >■ a^ -- ► -- »- ... . Let X = {c e G(a) | c — » b}. Then,
clearly, by hypothesis (2), ft must leave X eventually, i.e.
54

3k e IN Vj > k a ^ e X. (*).
Now define for c e X the natural number

|c| = max.{|<R| | <R: c — » b}.

By hypothesis (2), |c| is indeed defined. Note that for all c,c’ e X:

c -- »- c ’ =» |c| > |cr|.

Now we will prove by (course-of-values) induction on |c| that X is

closed under reduction, i.e.:

c e X & c -- y c' => c' e X. (**)

Then we have a contradiction with (*) and we are done.

BASIS. Suppose ]c| = 0 . Then c is in fact the normal form b and (**) is
vacuously true.

INDUCTION STEP. Induction hypothesis: suppose (**) is proved for all c e X

such that |c| < n.
Now consider c^ e X such that 1c q I = n+1. (See figure below.) Let
c e X be such that c^ ► c; then |c] < n. Suppose (for a proof by contra­
diction) that Cq ► d for some d i X. By WCR, c and d have a common reduct
e. Since d £ X, also e i X. Hence there are c', e' such that c — » c* -- ►
e' — » e and c' e X but e' i X. Now 1c'| < |c] < 1cQ 1, so the induction
hypothesis applies to c' and we have a contradiction. Hence (**) is proved
for C q . □
 55

5.19. COROLLARY.
(i) WCR & WN & Inc => UN & CR & SN
(ii) WCR & Inc =» (WN <=> SN) .

PROOF.
(i) Hypothesis (2) of theorem 5.18 is ensured by Inc.
(ii) Trivial from (i). □
56

5.20. The figure below gives a survey of several of the facts treated in
this section.
 57

6. THE CHURCH-ROSSER THEOREM

After the digressions in the previous section about Abstract Reduction

Systems we will now return to the main theme of this Chapter, A-calculus
plus labels and definable extensions AP of A-calculus. Note that these 'con­
crete' reduction systems are also ARS's; so the definitions and propositions
in the previous section apply to them. Often we will be able to prove re­
fined results for these systems, by considering not only the binary reduc-
tion relations M -- »- N, but the ternary relation M -- > N obtained by speci­
fying (the occurrence of) the contracted redex in M.
We will prove in this section that AL , AP |= CR, i.e. the Church-Rosser
theorem holds for Levy's A-calculus, hence for all other labeled (typed,
underlined) A-calculi we considered in §3, and for definable extensions of
A, hence for CL.
Let us remind Def. 5.2. (4) of CR: if <R = A -- > ... -- »- B and
& 2 = A -- >- ... -- >■ C are two 'divergent' reductions, one can find 'conver­
gent' reductions & and <R :
3 4

An alternative formulation (easily seen to be equivalent; see also

Prop.5.3) is:

VB,C 3d (B = C => B — » D & C — » D)

58

e.g.

/N /
\i
N
/
>

Some important consequences of the CR theorem are mentioned in Theorem 5.11.

We will prove CR using FD (Theorem 4.1.11). In fact a strengthened
version CR+ is proved; namely, there is a canonical procedure of finding
the common reduct D of B and C. Moreover we will obtain as corollaries the
well-known Lemma of Parallel Moves, and the commutativity of 3- and P
reductions (see Def.5.2.(1)).
An almost similar version of CR+ for XL was first proved by LEVY [78],
not via FD however. Here we look in a slightly more detailed way to what
happens in a 'reduction diagram', which will help us in Chapter IV to deal
with 3Ti~reductions.
The method below of constructing a reduction diagram by 'tiling' was
independently considered by Hindley (in an unpublished note).

6.1. CONSTRUCTION OF REDUCTION DIAGRAMS

Let two coinitial finite reduction sequences = M^ -- ► ... -- >■ M^

and <R = M_ -- > M' -- »- ... -- »- M' be given. We want to construct a common
2 0 1 m ^
reduct of M^and M^ by filling up a diagram D as indicated in the figure,
viz. by successively adjoining 'elementary diagrams'; these are the dia­
grams which one obtains by checking that AP |= WCR (Def .5.2. (2) ) .
 59

The order in which the elementary diagrams are adjoined, is unimportant.

It is fairly evident what is meant by 'elementary diagrams'; however since
we will use 'empty' steps, we will now list them.

6.1.1. For the A-calculus the elementary reduction diagrams are of the fol­
lowing types.

(i)

n ^ 0 times; for n = 0:

Here R2 c Arg(R^), the argument of R^, and multCR^) = n where mult((Ax.A)B)

is the multiplicity of x in A.
In case n = 0 and 'emruy' or 'trivial' step is introduced.

(ii)

8 if R^ ^ R2 and not case (i) ,

3
60

(iii)

(iv) R (v) E
r 7 i
!------------- f
i

R i 1 1
3

Further, we have all the elementary diagrams obtained from these by re­
flection in the main diagonal.

6.1.2. For definable extensions \P we have moreover the following elementary

diagrams:

(i)
n > 0 times, in case R^ is a subterm of one
of the arguments of R ^ .
Likewise with 3 and P interchanged, if
R2 c Arg(R ).

(ii)

if not case (i)

Likewise with 6, P interchanged.
 61

(iii) (iv)

Further, all the diagrams obtained from these by reflection in the main
diagonal.
The -- z--- steps, at which nothing happens, are called trivial or
empty (0), and serve to keep the diagram V in a rectangular shape. This
enables us to have the intuition of reduction steps in a reduction diagram
V as objects 'moving' or 'propagating' in two directions | and --- > , may
be 'splitting' on the way or becoming absorbed (= changing in a 0-step.)
This intuition will prove to be especially rewarding in the Bn-case, which
is dealt with in Ch.IV.
Note that in each case the redexes contracted in the side BD are

residuals of the one contracted in AC likewise for CD and AB.

6.1.3. ELEMENTARY REDUCTION DIAGRAMS WITH LABELS

Let an elementary diagram (e.d.) V a s above be given, say

where M^ (i = 1,...,5) are unlabeled X-

terms.

Now let I be some Levy-labeling for M ^ ; result: a XL-term M ^ . Then one

has to check that V extends to a labeled e.d. V 1 :
62

I
1
M That is, -- y -- ► M^_ extends to
1
ft
PL * M
±‘
' 4
v I, and -- y -- »- -- >■ M^_ extends to
'5
LI1 M. I3 I4 I5
5
M, -- y M -- y M. -- > M_ , and now
1 3 4 b
we must have I = I'. This is a tedious but routine exercise which will be
b b
left to the reader.
Since the extendability of e.d.'s V to labeled e.d.'s V1 holds for
AL , it holds also for all of the ’homomorphic images’ of AL , that is for
all the labeled/typed/underlined A-calculi we have encountered thus far -
except underlined AP-calculi (definable extensions of A-calculus). For the
latter a separate routine exercise yields the same result.
Since developments are a special case of underlined reduction in A-
calculus or AP-calculus, we note in particular that for developments we
have e .d .'s .

6.1.4. DEFINITION. Elementary diagrams having two or more 'empty' steps, are
called trivial.

6.2. NOTATION.
(i) In the remainder of this chapter '£' will denote a definable extension
AP of A, or a substructure of AP (w.r.t. £ as defined in 5.10). So I
refers for instance to A, Al, AP, AlP (as defined in 7.1.)
and CL.
(ii) ^denotes the underlined version of £, as defined in 3.5.

6 -3 - p r o p o s i t i o n . |= CR.

PROOF. By Theorem 4.1.11 we have |= SN. By 6.1.3 we have \= WCR. Hence

by Newman's Lemma 5.7. (1), |= CR. □

In the next lemma the preceeding proposition will be considerably

strengthened. For that purpose we need transfinite induction up to the or-
(A)
dinal number w . Therefore:

__ a
6.4. INTERMEZZO. Transfinite induction up to a) .
 63

6.4.1. DEFINITION, (i) Let a be some ordinal, and let T be the set of all
n-tuples <3^,...,$n> (nelN ) of ordinals less than a. Let = be the equiva­
lence relation on T defined by:

(i) <otl'0t2> “ <a2 'oti>

(ii) t = t' => t * t * t — t^ * t 1 * t^ for all t ^ t ^ 6 T ’ Here * de"
notes concatenation of tuples.
d i i ) t l = t 2 & t 2 a t 3 => t 1 = t 3 .

Further, let IT be the set of equivalence classes of T under = . So elements

of IT can be thought of as tuples where the order of the 3^
(i = l,...,n) is irrelevant. We call the elements of IT also 'multisets1.
(ii) Now consider the following 'reduction relation' -- > on IT: in
<3 j f .•. #3^f •••3J1> an arbitrary 3^ (i = l,...,n) may be replaced by an ar­
bitrarily large finite number of elements yj^,...,yjN each less than 3^-
So

/Y .
V " % .....v-
6.4.2. PROPOSITION. The reduction relation -- ► onTF is strongly normalizing
a
In fact — » is a well-ordering of IT of order type a) .

PROOF. Group the elements of a given tuple together as follows:

<Y1'Y 1.... V Y2 .... y 2 ' .... Yk ..... V

V
v i -- v
n^ times n^ times n, times
k

such that y > y > ... > y . Assign to such a tuple the ordinal
Yl 1 -yk K
a) -n^ + ... + a) *n^ (a ’Cantor normal form'). The proposition now fol­
lows by elementary ordinal arithmetic. □

6.5. MAIN LEMMA. \= CR+ , i.e. each construction of a ^.-reduction diagram

(as in 6.1) terminates.

PROOF. Consider M £ Ter (E_) and E-reductions <R^, <R as in figure 6.5.1. Let
the reduction diagram P(<R ,<R ) be constructed up to the displayed stage, by
the successive addition of elementary diagrams.■Compared to Proposition 6.3
there is now the additional problem of the trivial steps in the e.d.'s; a
priori it would be possible that they would make P(<R ,<R ) "explode", i.e.
64

that the construction does not terminate but results in an Escher-like

figure, with ever decreasing tiles, as in figures 6.5.2 and 6.5.3.

Figure 6.5.1.

Figure 6.5.2
 65

B C

Figure 6.5.3

(In the last two figures care has been taken of the constraint that an e.d.
can split at one side at most; so e.g.
------- >

V'

>. j'

is impossible. Figure 6.5.3 is the result of starting with the part bounded
by ABCDEF, reinserting an isomorphic copy of this part in the corner CDE,
and repeating this procedure ad infinitum whenever such a corner is formed.)

Give M a good weight assignment (see Definition 4.1.6). Extend

and all the reductions in ^((Rj,^) as far as completed, to reductions with
weight assignments. By Lemma 4.1.10 the weight assignments stay good for all
the terms in these reductions.
Now assign to each construction stage of ) the multiset of
natural numbers <]A „ 1,]A_1,...,|A 1> where the A. are as in figure 6.5.1
1 2 n i t.
and Ia J is the weight of A^ (i = l,...,n) . (In fact we should write |a _^ |
where I_^ is the weight assignment of A_^.)
Next consider what happens to this multiset after adding an e.d. If
the e.d. is trivial, the multiset remains the same. Otherwise, suppose that
we add, say:
66

A,
6

A,
‘5

Now all the steps are proper reduction steps, so |a | > |b .|, i = 1,2,3 by
6 1
Lemma 4.1.10(ii). Hence the multiset corresponding to this stage of the
construction, < |A |,..., |A |, |B |, IB |, 1B |, |A |,...,|a |> is less than
1 5 3 2 1 / n
the previous one w.r.t. the well-ordering in Proposition 6.4.2.
Therefore after some stage in the construction, no nontrivial e.d.'s
can be added. Further it is clear that addition of trivial e.d.’s (which
have no 'splitting' effect) must terminate too.
Finally, each diagram construction ends in the same result. This is
evident by Lemma 5.7. (3), considering as objects: stages of construction,
and as reduction: addition of an e.d. □

In fact, we can obtain more information out of the proof of Lemma 6.5.
In order to state a refinement of this Main Lemma, we need the following
definition.

6.6. DEFINITION. (Complete developments)

Let M e Ter (£) and let JR be the set of underlined redexes in M. Let
<R = M >■ M' »- ... > N be a maximal E_-reduction; i.e. N is a E-normal
form, hence N contains no underlining.
Now let <R* be the E-reduction obtained from (R by erasing the under­
lining symbols. Then <R* is called a complete (E-)development w.r.t. the
set of redexes JR .

k
6.7. CONVENTION. Let M, ® be as in Definition 6.6 and M be M without un­
derlining. Henceforth we will identify:

(maximal) Yr-reductions of M, and

k
(complete) Y-developments of M w.r.t. 1R

6.8. REFINED MAIN LEMMA. (I) First formulation.

Let M € Ter(E) . Let 3R^ (i = 0,1) be two sets of redexes in M, and let <R^
be two complete developments w.r.t. 1R^ (i = 0,1).
 67

Then the construction of the Z-reduction diagram PC&q ,^) terminates (see
following figure) and the right resp. lower side M. — » is in fact a
complete development of 1R\ , the set of residuals of the redexes in 1R
i i
(i = 0,1) .

(II) Second formulation.

Let be Z where the head symbol of a redex may be labeled with 0,1 or
01 and where only reduction of labeled redexes is allowed. (So is like
Z_, but now using underlining symbols of two 'colors'.)
Let M € TerCE^) and let (R^ be a Z^-reduction of M in which only 0- or 01-
redexes are contracted; likewise in (R^ only 1- or 01—redexes are contracted.
(See figure.) Moreover, in no label 0, 01 is present, and contains
no label 1, 01. Then
(i) the construction of the Z^-reduction diagram P(<Rq ,<R^) terminates;
(ii) in the right side only 1-redexes are contracted and in the
lower side only 0-redexes;
(iii) moreover in no labels are present.
68

PROOF. Clearly (I) and (II) are equivalent formulations. We will prove (II).
(i) There is an obvious projection -- »■ namely replacing by
and P0 fPi'Poi bY — ’ S° an ,exPloding' Eg^diagram would give rise to an
exploding ^-diagram, in contradiction with the Main Lemma 6.5.
(ii) The steps in <R^ are contractions of labels 1 or 01, hence for the
propagated steps the same holds. Therefore in Mg — » only label 1 con­
tractions can occur since in there are no labels 01. Likewise for <Rg.
(iii) Immediate by the fact that in M^ no label 1, 01 occurs and in no
label 0, 01. □

As a first corollary of the refined Main Lemma we have

6.9. CHURCH-ROSSER THEOREM. £ j= CR+ , i.e.: Let <R = M M N

and (R' = M Mj N' be ^-reductions. Then N, N' have a common
reduct which can be found by the construction of P((R^,(R^) .

PROOF.

P(<R,(R')

Using the refined Main Lemma we can fill in block by block of the diagram
V ((R,(R') . Here we use the fact that a single reduction step is trivially a
complete development. □
 69

6.10. NOTATION, (i) If (R^ ,6^ are two coinitial reductions, the right side
of ^((R^,^) is denoted by and will be called the projection of by
<R^. Likewise for the lower side:

<R /<R
r 2

(ii) If <R^ = M -- ► ... -- * N and (R^ = N -- * N' -- ► ... is a finite or in­

finite reduction, then <R * (R^ denotes the concatenation M -- y ... -- > N

(iii) If (R consists of one step, <R = M -- y N, we will write (R = {r }.

6.11. REMARK. Even if (R is infinite and (R^ is finite, the reduction diagram
P((R^,(R^) and the projection (R^/tf^ are defined.

r->--------------------------
«2

\________________________
(Rl /(R2
The second corollary of the refined Main Lemma is:

6.i2. PARALLEL MOVES LEMMA (PM) .

(i) Let in M some redexes be labeled with 0. Let (R^ be a complete develop­
ment (c.dev.) of the 0-redexes, and let <R be an arbitrary reduction M — » n .
(See figure.)
Then (R^/iR is a complete development of the 0-redexes in N.

-- 77"_N

( .dev.
c
%
0
0

c.dev p
O' 0

(ii) As a special case of (i) we have:

70

A P(«,{R})
0

(likewise for instead of A^)

PROOF, (i) Induction on the length of (R. □

Thirdly, we have at once from the refined Main Lemma:

6.13. COROLLARY. Let £ be (a substructure of) a definable extension

<Ter(AP), >
ieJ*

Then the reductions (ieJ) are pairwise commuting (see Defini­

3
tion 5.2. (1) ) .

6.14. REMARK- By 6.1.3 it is clear that the results of this section general­
ize immediately to the case where L- or HW- labels or types, as in section 3,
are present.

6.15. EXAMPLE. In the next figure an example of a A-reduction diagram is

given:
 71

(Here co = Ax.xx and R = la.)

03(coR) 03(oja) o)(aa)

72

7. CHURCH'S THEOREM

A well-known theorem in CHURCH [41] (p.26, 7XXXI) states that for Al-
calculus a term is weakly normalizing (has a normal form) iff it is strongly
normalizing. A corollary (p.27, 7XXXII) is that a Al-term has a normal form
iff all its subterms do. For A-calculus Church's Theorem fails as the term
(Ax.I)ft (where ft = (Ax.xx) (Ax.xx) and I = Ax.x) shows, since in (Ax.I) ft I
the subterm ft is erased. Intuitively, the reason that Al satisfies Church's
theorem is found in the fact that in AI there is no erasing possible. I.e.
in a reduction step every redex R, except the one contracted, has at least
one residual; in other words, a redex R cannot be 'thrown away', like ft in
the example above, or as in CL: KA<C[R] A. (In fact, we will prove in
Chapter II that Church's Theorem holds for all 'regular' Combinatory Reduc­
tion Systems which are non-erasing.)
In this section we will prove Church's Theorem for definable extensions
AlP of Xl-calculus.

7.1. DEFINITION. Let P be a set of new constants, P = | iel}, and let

(as in Def.1.12.1) reduction rules be given for the P^ (ieJ£i) as follows:

..A ,,p.
W V A 1.... Dn,

for some Q. (x, ,...,x ,y.,...,y ) e Ter (Al) such that FV (0.) => (x„ , .. .,x } .
i l n 1 n. i 1 n
(So all the meta-variables A ,...,A occur actually in the RHS of the reduc-
1 n
tion rule.)
Then the reduction system Al together with P and the new reduction
rules, is called a definable extension of Al-calculus. We will refer to it
as AlP-calculus.

7.2. EXAMPLES.
(i) AlP where P = {I,J} and with the rules Ia --»■ A, JABCD -- ► AB (ADC) is
a definable extension of Al.
(ii) . The set of terms built up from I,J as in (i) and with the same reduc­
tion rules, is the reduction system CL^ (which is the non-erasing
variant of CL, as Al is the non-erasing variant of A).
CL^ is a substructure of AlP in (i) in the sense of Def.5.10.(2).
(iii) Al{P} with the rule PABC -- ► P(AC)B is a definable extension of Al,
which will play a role in the next section.
 73

7.3. REMARK, (i) As in the case of AP-calculi (definable extensions of A),

it is not hard to prove that for P finite, the new constants P plus their
1
reduction rules can be defined in Al-calculus, using the multiple fixed
point theorem for Al-calculus. Here the condition that the meta-variables
A ^ ,...,A^ occur actually in the RHS of the reduction rule, is essential.
(ii) Note that AlP is non-erasing.

Church's Theorem will be a corollary of the following stronger fact:

7.4. LEMMA. Let l be a substructure of a definable extension AlP of Al.

Let <R be an infinite reduction in E and <R' = M N a finite reduction
in E.
Then (R/(R' is infinite.

PROOF. The proof is a consequence of FD (4.1.11), CR+ (6.9), PM (6.12) and

the fact that there is no erasure in E £ AlP.
Clearly it suffices to consider the case that <R' = M -- y n is one step,
in another notation: <R' = {r }.

Suppose the lemma does not hold and (R/{r } is finite; say after N it is
n
empty (*). Assign to the head-A of R the label 0 and to all the other A's
in M the label 1. Then (R^ = M^ — » N^ is a development of A^-redexes (by
PM) .
Now consider the first step in M -- y M „ -- »- ... where a A -redex
n n+1 1
is contracted, say this is M^ -- y Mm+1* FD such a steP must exist!)
(R = M — »> N is again a A -development.
2 m m 0
74

CLAIM.

M
m m+1 / * 0.
Then we have a contradiction with (*).

PROOF OF THE CLAIM. Since there is no erasure in Z, there are no elementary

diagrams of type
---- 1
|0 or (i.e. n > 0 in 6.1.1.(i) and
-- i --- -1 6.1.2. (i) )
The only possibility for absorption of a step is an e.d.
R„

____I
0
where R^ = R^.
Hence in 'm m+1
TT the bottom side is not 0, since in M
1* m
the A^-redex ^ the set of A^-redexes.
0
So the
* ---- »
'1
bottom side is P PJ — » 0^. This argument can be repeated for the next
1
e.d. P'
-nr+l 1

'iL.

etc. This proves the claim. U

7.5. COROLLARY (Church's Theorem).

Let Z be a substructure of a definable extension of Al-calculus. Let
M e Ter(Z) . Then:
(i) M € WN <=> M £ SN.
In other words: if M has a normal form N, then every reduction of M
terminates eventually (in N, by CR).
(ii) M £ WN <=> VM' c m M' £ WN
(M has a normal form iff all its subterms have a normal form.)

PROOF, (i) <= is trivial. =>: suppose M e WN but M ^ SN. So there is a reduc­
tion <R' = M — » N to a normal form N and there is an infinite reduction
 75

<R = M -- ► ... .
By Lemma 7.4, <R/(R' = N > ... is an infinite reduction. This contradicts
the fact that N is a normal form, (ii) is an easy consequence of (i). □

7.6. REMARK. In A-calculus one can ask what happens in a step P >■ Q
which is 'critical' in the sense that P i SN but Q e SN. (So by Lemma 7.4
there are no critical steps in E £ AlP.) In BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP,
VGLKEN [76], Chapter II, it is proved that in such a step the redex R must
be of the form (Ax.A)B where x ^ FV(A), i.e. R erases its argument B. This
result is refined in BERGSTRA, KLOP [78].

8. STRONG NORMALIZATION OF LABELED A-CALCULI (VIA Al-CALCULUS)

Introduction. In this section we will prove that AL/P (for bounded P) and
HW t
its homomorphic images A and A have the property of strong normalization
(SN) , i.e. every AL#P-reduction (resp. AH^-,AT-) terminates.
(1) Such a proof can probably be given using Tait's method of (strong) com-
L HW
putability, although we have not seen yet such a proof for A ; for A this
x
is done by de Vrijer (unpublished) and for A (and even for the much stronger
t
system A + recursor R, also called "Godel'sT") this is done in e.g.
TROELSTRA [73]. Metamathematically speaking the method has the drawback of
using rather strong means, but it is amazingly slick.
(2) Another proof for AL (= SN is by a method due to D. van Daalen; see
LEVY [75,78].
x
(3) For A + R there is a proof of Howard, using an ordinal assignment up
to Eq , but only of WN. It is complicated but constructive, as opposed to
Tait's method. See SCHUTTE [77] §16. (Instead of R, Schutte uses the iter­
ator J.)
x
(4) For A (+ numerals and some basic arithmetical functions: successor and
addition) a proof of SN was given by Gandy (unpublished) via an interpre-
x
tation in Al , typed Al-calculus.
(5) Here we will give a proof of SN for the stronger system AL also via an
interpretation in AlL , Levy-labeled Al-calculus. Apart from the idea of an
interpretation, there seems to be no resemblance with (4)..
(6) DE VRIJER [75] and NEDERPELT [73] prove SN for certain A-calculi (re­
lated to the AUTOMATH project of de Bruijn) having A-terms as types.
(7) After this Chapter was written, we have elaborated the idea of this
section in a general setting; see Chapter II. There we use a method due to
76

NEDERPELT [73] in an essential way.

In fact, the result in this section is a corollary of a general theorem
in Chapter II; nevertheless we have maintained this section 8 here since it
provides an intuitive idea and an introduction to the part of Chapter II in
question.

The next lemma was independently proved by J.J. Levy (personal commu-
HW
nication). By Al we mean Al-calculus plus Hyland-Wadsworth labels as in
L P „ T
3.7; likewise for Al ' (Al-calculus plus Levy's labels, see 3.9) and Al
(typed Al-calculus, see 3.8).

8.1. LEMMA.
(i) Xim |= SN
(ii) AIL 'P |= SN for bounded P
(iii) AlT |= SN.

PROOF. We will prove (i); by Proposition 3.9.3 this implies (ii), which im­
plies (iii) .
HW
Suppose that there exists an infinite reduction (R in Al , starting
with M. Now consider a reduction <R' of M obtained by repeatedly contracting
an innermost redex (Ax.A)n+^ B. Such a contraction does not multiply exist­
ing redexes (since B contains none), and the redexes which are created by
this contraction, have degree < n+1 . (See 3.7.2. (ii) .) Let <R' be
M E M q -- ► M^ -- >■ ... and assign to M, (i = 0,1,...) the multiset of de­
grees of redexes in M. (Def.6.4.1). Then, by our previous remark and by
1 HW
Proposition 6.4.2, we see that <R' must terminate, say in the Al -normal
form M .
n
Now construct the Al -diagram V (&,&') . (See figure.) By Lemma 7.4
(which holds also in the presence of labels; see Remark 6.11) it follows
HW
that <R/<R' is infinite. But M is a Al -normal form, hence <R/<R' must be
n
empty. Contradiction.

MEM a
0

<R' 0(<R,(R')

M
n <R/(R'

□
 77

8.2. INTUITION. The above simple proof suggests that it might be profitable
to interpret AL in AlL .
Firstly, let us simulate a given reduction <R = M -- > ... in A-calculus
by a reduction <R' in Al-calculus as follows. Replace in M every subterm
Ax.A by Ax .[A,x ] where [,] is some pairing operator to be specified later.
Now consider e.g.:
in A-calculus: <R = (Ax. I) ABC -- ► IBC -- ► BC -- ► ...

in Al-calculus: <R' = (Ax.[l,x]) ABC -- >■ [l,A] BC -- ► ?

In order to be able to simulate the second step in (R, we are led to

introduce the rule: [M,N]L ~— > [ML,N]. And now the second step in <R can
be simulated:

[I ,a ]b c -- > [IB,A]C---> [IBC,A] ---- ► [BC^].

In this way we ensure that the 'dummy subterms' A which are carried along
in [...,A] do not form an obstacle to perform the 'proper' reduction steps
which are copied from <R.

Secondly, we have to add L-labels. Everything extends to the labeled

case in a pleasant way; there is only one 'caveat': the intuition that in
[A,B] the A is the proper part and B is the dummy part, suggests that we
add the rule for label manipulation

[A,B]a — [Aa ,B].

The necessity of this rule can be illustrated by the following example:

[A,B]“ C ~~ ~ ~ > [AC,B]“

i not ,
r 1
[a “ ,b ] c :
I 1
[a “c ,B] t [(AC)a ,B]

8.3. DEFINITION. Let AP be the definable extension of A-calculus obtained

by adding a constant P with reduction rule

PABC *> P (AC) B

78

for all A,B,C € Ter(AP).

8.4. PROPOSITION. Every M e Ter(AP) has a V-normal form M', i.e. M' con­
tains no P-redexes and M m '.

PROOF. Define the tree t(M) of M e Ter(AP) inductively as follows.

(i) t(x) = x and t(P) = P

(ii) t (AB)

(iii) t(Ax.A)

E .g . t ((Ax.Pxx (yy) ) (Ax.xyP) )

Ax

y y

So P-reduction in tree form looks like:

Now consider t(M) as a partial

ordering (p.o.) of its nodes.
Then if M M', the p.o.'s
t(M) and t(M') contain just as
many points, but in the p.o.
t(M') more pairs of points
are comparable. Hence the proposition follows, since in a p.o. of say n
points the number of comparable pairs is bounded (by (^)). D
 79

We will restrict the set Ter(AP) to those terms in which every P is

followed by at least two arguments. (I.e. every P occurs as the head symbol
of PA,A^...A for some A„ ,.. .,A and n > 2.) Furthermore, we will write
1 2 n 1 n
[A,B] instead of PAB.

8.5. DEFINITION. Ar n is the reduction system <Ter(Ar n) , — , -- >> where

---------- 1_,J Lr J B
Ter(A^- -j) (the set of terms indicated above) is defined inductively by the
clauses

(i), (ii), (iii) similar to Definition 1.1 of Ter(A)

(iv) A,B € Ter(A^- -j) => [A,B] € Ter(A^- -j)

and ™ ~ > is defined by [A,B]C *-- '> [AC,B].

(I.e. the translation of the P-reduction rule in Definition 8.3.)
A [, ~]-normal form is a term in which no --->-step is possible.

8.6. DEFINITION. (1) — -— ► is a reduction relation on Ter(A^- -j) defined by

[A,B] - A for all A,B € Ter(A^- -|) .

Obviously every k-reduction ends, in a unique term e Ter(A) (the k-

normal form). The unicity follows from a simple Church-Rosser argument
(apply Lemma 5.7. (1) and Theorem 5.11. (2)).

(2) k: Ter(A|- -j) -- > Ter (A) is the map defined by

k: M »--- >■ the k-noimial form of M.

(Remark: k can also directly

(i) k (x) = X
(ii) k (AB) = (k (A) k (B)
(iii) k (Ax.A) = Ax .k (A)
(iv) k (Ta ,B]) = k (A) .

But the propositions about k in the sequel are easier to prove using

8.7. PROPOSITION. Let A e Ter(A^- -j) be in [, ]-nf and let A B. Then B

is in [,]-nf.
80

PROOF. routine. □

8.8. PROPOSITION. Let A,B,C € Ter(Aj- -j) be such that A B -y* C and A is
in [,]-nf. (See figure.)

Then there is a D e Ter(Af -,) such that A — D C.

L /J p K

A in [,]-nf D
-------- ^

3 C

PROOF. Just contract the 'same' 3-redex in A as the one contracted in B . It

is routine to check that this is indeed possible. (We need A to be in
[,]-nf, for consider otherwise e.g.:

A E [l,M]N
Jk
B E IN NEC.). □

8.9. PROPOSITION. Let A e Ter(Ar -,) he in [, ]-nf and B,C e Ter (A) such that
L /J
A J— — — >■ C. Then there is a B e Ter(Aj- -|) such that A - y C.

A in C,]-nf D
3

PROOF. Choose an arbitrary k-reduction from A to B:

A" ^ ^ (n) B.
k ’"’ k

(i)
Since A is in [,]--nf, by Prop. 8.7 also A is in [,]-nf (i = l,...,n)
 81

Now repeated application of the preceeding proposition D

k
yields: (see figure)
D'
k k
\f
A'\£ D"
and since C is a k-nf (because B is) we have k (D) e C.
i
i
• i
^/_ (n)
A (n>^
k

V-
B

8.10. PROPOSITION, (i) Let A,B,C e Ter(A^- ^) be such that C <.- A B.

Then B — >■ C or 3D C -- > D < — B. (See left figure.)
k k

(ii) Let A -- » B. Then k (A) = k (B). (See right figure.)

PROOF.
(i) routine.
(ii) immediately from (i). □

The next definition is crucial.

8.11. DEFINITION. Let Ter(Al^ ^) be the set of A^- -j-terms such that in terms
of the form Ax.A the variable x e FV(A).
Now define i: Ter (A) -- > Ter(Al^- -j) inductively by

(i) i(x) = x
(ii) 1(AB) E (i(A)i(B))
(iii) i(Ax.A) E Ax.[i(A),x].
82

8.11.1. REMARK. If M e Ter(A), then obviously k ° i (M) = M.

8.12. Addition of labels. We want to reconsider 8.5-8.11, now in the pre-

sence of L-labels or HW-labels.
Ad 8.5. The definition of Ar -.-terms is an unproblematic union of the
L L 'J
definitions of A -terns (3.9) and of Ar -.-terns (8.5) .
L L /J
Reduction in Af is given by:
L /J
6 -, 6
(i) (Ax.A) B --- >• [x:=]

(ii) [x:=A]x“ = a “

(iii) (A0*) B — - a “B

(iv) [A,B]“ -- ^ [a “ (B]

(v) [A,B]C -- > [AC,B]

for all A,B,C e Ter(A^ -j) and a,3,6 e L. Reductions (iii) , (iv) which con­
cern the manipulation of labels, are not considered as 'proper' reductions
we will execute them immediately whenever possible (hence we work in fact
w i t h --- »- - normal forms) . In this way we ensure moreover what we need in
(v) (see the last example in 8.2), viz. that a subterm [A,B] must be un­
labeled.

Ad 8.6(1) Define: [A,B] —-— >- A for all A,B e Ter(A^ -,) .
k L tJ
Ad 8.6(2):

Define k similar as before. Hie reader may convince himself that the ex-
L
tension of the Propositions 8.7-8.10 to the labeled case is entirely
straightforward and unproblematic. We will only present the extension of i
to the labeled case:

Ad 8.11. Let i : Ter(AL) -- > Ter(Al^ -,) be defined by:

L L /J
(i) i_ (x) E x
Li
(ii) 1T (AB) = l (A) 1 (B)
i_ i J_i J _i

i (Ax.A) E Ax.[i (A),x]

(iii)
Li Li
(iv) l (A01) = (l (A) )“
L L
Now we get the [,]-analogue of lemma 8.1:

8.13. LEMMA. bounded (= SN, likewise ani3 y

 83

PROOF. Suppose an infinite reduction <R = M -- »■ ... in say Art'? is given.

L /J
As before, in 8.1, we find a terminating reduction (R1 of M by contraction
of innermost redexes, where after each 3-step we take the [,]-nf:

■V
(R/(R'
----E7P---
N in Alp -,-nf
L/J

Applying Church's theorem 7.5 on Xlj- a substructure of a definable

extension of XI, yields: <R/<R' is infinite. Contradiction. □

Finally we can collect the fruits of our labor:

8.14. THEOREM. AL,P (P bounded), A**, AT |= SN.

PROOF. Suppose an infinite reduction <R = M

T p
... in A ' is given. Let
N = i (M); by Remark 8.11.1 we have k (N) = M. (See figure below.) Now re-
L L
peated application of the (according to 8.12) labeled versions of Proposi-
L P
tions 8.9 and 8.10(ii) yields an infinite reduction <R' in Al' as in the
L P *-fJ
figure. But this contradicts Lemma 8.13. Hence X ' |= SN; for the other two
reduction systems SN follows from this, as before.

□
84

9. STANDARDIZATION

In this section we will give the first of two new proofs of the well-
known Standardization Theorem for AB-calculus. This proof extends (see 9.10)
also to definable extensions of A-calculus; but in 9.1 - 9.7 we will con­
sider only X3-calculus, for notational simplicity. In Chapter IV the same
method will be used to prove the Standardization Theorem for X3r)-calculus.
In fact we will prove (see 9.8.3) a strong version of the Standardi­
zation Theorem, due to LEVY [78]. To this end, in 9.8 Levy's concept of
'equivalence of reductions' will be introduced.

9.1. DEFINITION. Standard reductions

A reduction <R = M^ — »- M^ — >--- (finite or infinite) is standard if the
successive redex contractions take place from left to right.

More precisely: let * be an auxiliary symbol to be attached to some

ic
redex-A's: (A x.A)B, indicating that it is henceforth forbidden to contract
this redex. Now the reduction (R is provided with markers * by the following
inductive definition.
Suppose up to M the markers are attached. Consider the step
Rn n 1
M -- >■ M ,„ where R is the contracted redex. Mark
n n+1 n
ic
(1) every A in M which descends from a X in M
n n-1
(ii) every A in M^ to the left of the head-A of R , if not yet marked by
(i) .

Now we define: (R is standard if no marked redex is contracted in <R.

9.1.1. REMARK. (1) It is equivalent to require in (ii): every redex-X in
M to the left of ... and so on.
n
(2) It is easy to see that this definition is equivalent to the usual one,
as in HINDLEY [78], in terms of residuals - but we find that the use of *
facilitates our way of speaking.
(3) Hindley distinguishes 'weakly standard' and 1strongly standard'• His
'strongly standard' is the above concept 'standard'. Hindley proved that
for the A3-calculus the two concepts coincide, see HINDLEY [78].

9.2. DEFINITION. Let (R = M^

Rn ► M^ Ri
--> -- be a finite or infinite reduc­
tion sequence. A redex R c M_ is contracted in
U
(R if for some n e1 , R is
n
a residual of R.
 85

9.2.1. NOTATION.
(i) lmc (<R) is the le f t m o s t redex in M q that is contracted in <R.
(ii) p(<R) = (R/{lmc (<R) }, i.e. p(<R) is the projection of <R by the contraction
of the redex lmc ((R) .
(iii) If s,s' e M, then s < s' means: s is to the left of s'.
If S ,S ' £ M, then S < S' means: the headsymbol of S is to the left of
that of S *.

9.3. DEFINITION of the standardization procedure

Let <R = Mq — y — y ... — y be a given reduction sequence. Define by in­
duction a reduction sequence (R^ as follows:

lmc (<R) lmc (p<R) lmc (p (R)

<R =
s

n
a possibly infinite sequence. It stops when there is no lmc(p (R) for some
n, i.e. when pn(R = 0.

We will show that <R is "the" standard reduction for <R; that is, <R is
s s
a standard reduction — ► ... —y which is moreover equivalent to (R in a
sense later to be specified.
The construction of (R^ is illustrated in the next figure. V^ is the
corresponding "standardization diagram".

V
s

Lmc ((R) (lmc

1 ((R) }/(R
p(R = (R/{lmc (<R) }
M!
1
Lmc (p<R)
p2(R

ft
s < Lmc (p2(R)
p^(R
M3
Lmc (p^(R) 4
p ft
86

9.4. PROPOSITION. {lmc ((R) }/(R = 0 (consists of empty steps.)

PROOF. Immediately by the Parallel Moves Lemma 6.12; let R in the figure
there be lmc ((R) . The head-X of R, X^, is clearly not multiplied in (R, since
it is lmc (<R) . Hence after the unique X^-contraction in (R, no X^ is present,
in particular not in M^. By PM, {r }/<R must be therefore empty. □

9.5. ---------
COROLLARY. The right side of Vs is empty. □

9.6. LEMMA. <R is finite.

----- s
HW
PROOF. We will use the labeled X -calculus as introduced in 3.7.
Let us recall the main properties of these labels:

(i) every subterm of a given X-term has a label £ 2SI written as super­
script.
(ii) the degree of a redex ((Xx.Aa)^B^)r is d.
(iii) indexed reduction is defined as in 3.7; for the application here we
need only to recall that contraction of a redex is allowed iff its
degree is > 0.
(iv) in an indexed reduction residuals of a redex with degree d, have
again degree d.
(v) Strong Normalization (SN) for indexed reduction: every indexed re­
duction terminates.
(vi) every finite reduction <R = M_ — ► .. — »- M can be extended to an in-
0 n
dexed reduction, by choosing sufficiently large indexes for M^ and
'taking these along' through <R. Similarly for two finite coinitial

Now take an indexing for <R (by vi) . By (iv) lmc (<R) has the degree of
the residual of lmc ((R) which is contracted in <R; i.e. a positive degree.
Therefore the indexing can be extended to all of the diagram V( {lmc ((R) },<R) .
Hence the bottom side of this diagram, <R', is again indexed. And so forth.
In this way the indexing of <R determines a unique indexing of the whole
diagram V . Thus in particular <R is indexed; hence by (v) it terminates. □
s s
HW
9.6.1. REMARK. Instead of using SN for X to prove the termination of s<R ,
one can alternatively use FD (the theorem of Finite Developments, 4.1.11).
The proof using FD is somewhat longer; in outline it is as follows (for a
complete proof see BARENDREGT [80]).
 87

Suppose <R is infinite. Then for some k. the projection of <R by

s s
M q — »- ... — >■ is infinite (see figure), i.e. contains infinitely many non­
empty steps, while the projection of ^ by ... -» M^.+ j is finite, i.e.
contains only 0 steps after some term B.
Let <R be as in the figure. Now by P M (6.12) , <R is a development.
1 2 3 £

Furthermore, it is not hard to prove that the step (lmc(<R)} propagates to

the right, without splitting, until it is "absorbed" as follows:

(X q x . A 1)B*

lmc ((ft)- (Aq X .A) B=R

Using this, and the fact that <R2 is a development, one can easily show that
also <R^ must be a development; hence, by FD, <R^ is finite. Contradiction.
Hence <R is finite. □
s

9.7. STANDARDIZATION THEOREM. Let <R be a finite reduction. Then s<R is a

standard reduction for (R, i.e.

(i) <R and (R have the same first and last term, and
s
(ii) <R is standard.
s

PROOF, (i) is almost trivial: since <Rs is finite, the construction of the
-----
diagram V = V(6i ,<R) terminates, hence V has a bottom side, <R/(R . This
s s s s
bottom side is empty, for otherwise <R would have gone further, by its
definition.
(ii) Attach markers * in <R as described in Def.9.1. Suppose <Rg is not
88

standard. Let M' be the first term in (ft such that in the step M' — >- M' ,,
m s m m+1
a marked redex R is contracted. Let M* be the term in (ft in which the
n s
(unique) ancestor R' of this redex is marked for the first time. Label all
the A's in M' with distinct labels such that A^ is the head-A of R', and
n 0
extend this labeling throughout the diagram in the figure.

pn(ft

*
A = M'
0 n

EM'
m

Now A„ , the redex contracted in M' — »• M' ., is > Art in M', since
1 n n+1 0 n 0
was marked in M^ for the first time. Hence 0 i {i ,...#i^}, because other-
n
wise Aq or a A < Aq should have been lmc(p (ft).
By the PM Lemma (6.12), the contracted labels in pm(ft form a subset of
{i^#...#i^}. Hence no A^ can be contracted in pm(ft, contradicting the as­
sumption that R = (Aq X.A)B = lmc (pm(ft) . □

9.7.1. REMARK. By the same method, one can also prove the 'completeness of
inside-out reductions', as it is called in WELCH [75] and LEVY [75]. Here
the definition of 'inside-out reduction' (not to be confused with 'inner­
most' reduction) is analogous to Definition 9.1 of 'standard' reduction:
replace in Def.9.1 the relation < ('to the left of') by c ('subterm of').
So instead of 'freezing' all redexes < the contracted redex by attaching
the marker *, we freeze all redexes c the contracted redex.
Now we have:

PROPOSITION. If M N, then there is an inside-out reduction M L

--------------- p p

such that N ---» L.

P

Since there is a short and elegant proof of the proposition in LEVY

[75] Thm.4, using AL , we will give only a sketch:
Define, analogous to the definition of (ft , a reduction (ft, by repeated
 89

contraction of an "innermost contracted redex" (instead of the "leftmost

contracted redex").
The proof that such an <R (not uniquely determined now, as <Rg was) ter­
minates and is an inside-out reduction indeed, is entirely analogous to the
corresponding proofs for (R^. Now let V q be the reduction diagram cor­
responding to the construction of q ; then the bottom side is, as before,
0. However, the right side of V q will be in general not empty. So we have

which proves the proposition. □

9.8. Equivalence of reductions. In fact we have just proved something more

than Theorem 9.7 as it stands. In order to formulate this, we will introduce
Levy's notion of 'equivalent reductions'. The notion is intuitively clear
and ties up nicely with XL . (In the next section it will be compared with
some other notions of equivalence for reductions.)
Suppose that <R , are finite reductions such that ft /ft^ = 0. This
means that in the steps coming from (R^ (propagating to the right)
are "absorbed" by those of <R (propagating downwards). In an intuitive
sense one can say: <R^ does the same things as (R^ and possibly more. There­
fore:
ft
1

9.8.1. DEFINITION (LEVY [78] 2.1.p.37).

(i) ftx > ft2 : <=> ft2/«1 = 0.

(ii) — L &2 : *=* “ ^ 2 & ^2 “ ^1 ’

(ft^ft^ are 'Levy-equivalent')
90

9.8.2. REMARK. (1) It is not hard to prove that ^ T is indeed an equivalence

relation; the transitivity is ensured by the 'cube lemma' (see LEVY [78]
2 .2 .1 ) .
(2) Warning: if ft^tf^ and ^ have the same first and last term, it does not
follow that ^ <R^ • The notion of diagram is essential here. Counterex­
ample :
(R1 = q (i d — ^ m , «2 = fl(ii) — * n(ii)# <R3 = n(ii) — > m.
For then ft2/ft^ = — * ^1^0-
(3) Levy uses a slightly different but equivalent definition of ft^/tf^ and
of 1?(<R^#<R2) (not using our e.d.'s).

Now we can prove the strong version of the Standardization Theorem for
AB-calculus:

9.8.3. STANDARDIZATION THEOREM (Strengthened version, Levy).

Let <R be a finite reduction sequence. Then <R^ is the unique standard reduc­
tion for <R such that <R ft.
s L

PROOF, (i) <R_ (R is a direct consequence of the definition of e*. ; for in-
s L L
deed in the standardization diagram both the right side and the lower
side were empty.
n
(ii) Unicity. Suppose (R is another standard reduction with the same first
and last term as (R, such that ft <R^. Then, because (R ^ (R and because
0
^ is transitive, we have <R ^ <R .
L L s
Now suppose that

Ro Rk-1
fts \ +l
M
n

and

R0 Rk-1
M' ■/
Mo n

where R^ f (as always: the occurrence of R^ ^ occ. of R^).

Then, testing whether flfft^ft^) has empty bottom and right side, we
have the following situation:
 91

Suppose = ---------------------- where X^, X^ are the head-X's of R^. and

R/ and X' < X . (The other case follows by symmetry.)
k k k r ^.
Now it is clear, using that --- »- ... is standard, that X^ propa­
gates without splitting or becoming absorbed. Hence the right side of
t?((R^,(R ) is not 0 , hence 96 <R , contradiction. fU
s L s

9.9. REMARK. All the facts in this section 9 generalize to definable ex-
->
tensions XP of X-calculus. In Def. 9.1: "frozen" P-redexes PA are marked
★->
as P A; 9.2 - 9.5 also extend immediately. At this moment, the proof of
Lemma 9.6 does not seem to generalize to XP, since we used X ^ |= SN and
for XP in general we have not yet a HW- or L-labeling available. However,
in Chapter II.6.2.7.15, we will extend Theorem 8.14, stating that
HW L P 1
X ,X ' |= SN, to a class of reduction systems containing the definable
extensions. Then also the proof of Lemma 9.6 generalizes to XP. Even now
we have the Standardization Theorem for XP, since in Lemma 9.6 we could
alternatively use FD (see Remark 9.6.1).
The notion of Levy-equivalence, the 'cube lemma' for XP, and the strong
version of the Standardization Theorem (9.8.3) also carry over, as one
easily checks.
92

9.10. REMARK. There is a close connection between AL and , which is ex­

tensively studied in LEVY [78]. We mention a few points: the reduction graph
G (M1) of a Levy-labeled term M1, is isomorphic with RED(M)/^, the set of
finite reductions of M modulo ^ . The reduction graph G(M) of the unlabeled
L
term M, is a homomorphic image of RED(M)/=^ ; that there is no isomorphism
L
between those structures is because there are 'syntactical accidents', as
Levy calls them. The paradigm of such a syntactical accident is:
I(Ix) -- > lx; in two, clearly not Levy-equivalent, ways I(Ix) is reduced to
the same result. For more examples of this sort, see our Examples 10.1.1.
LEVY [78] gives furthermore information about RED(M)/^ in terms of
Li
lattices; e.g. they are not complete but can be completed by taking also
infinite reductions of M into account. As an example consider the lattice
(not complete) RED(M)/^ where M = (Ax.Ka (x (a) m )) (Kb) . Here Ka := Ax.a
L 3 J
and = Ax.xxx. It is isomorphic with G (M) , since there are no syntactical
accidents here. RED (M) /sa can be completed by adding two points, i.e.
L
and (ft where (ft = M -- ► __w.o) a)_ — --- ► __ u)_u) u) u) ... and
1 L Z L 1 jJjj
= M -- >• Ka (Kb (o)_o)_) ) -- > Ka (Kb (m u)_u)_) ) -- >■ Ka (Kb (w_u)_u)_u)_) ) -- >- ...
z jj
(infinite reductions).

(Xx.a)(Kb)
 93

10. STANDARDIZATION AND EQUIVALENCE OF REDUCTIONS

In this section we give a second new proof of the Standardization

Theorem, thereby demonstrating a close connection between Levy-equivalence
of reductions as introduced in Def. 9.8.1, and standardization. We start
with comparing in 10.1 several definitions of equivalence which have been
proposed in the literature. In 10.2 we continue with and show that it
L
can be generated by a 'meta-reduction *=> between finite reductions <R^, <R
with fixed first and last term. <R^ *=> will mean that <R is 'more stan­
dard' than <R^. The reduction «=> has the following properties:

(1) it is strongly normalizing,

(2) it has the CR property,
(3) the '*=> -normal forms' are exactly the standard reductions,
(4) it generates ^ as equivalence relation.
L
Moreover, we obtain a simple proof of the Standardization Theorem.
When writing this section, we realized that Prop. 2.2.9 in LEVY [78],
due to Berry, is roughly the same as (4) above. A closely related idea is
stated in BERRY-LEVY [79]; see our remark after 10.2.6. There however the
direction in «=> is not considered, and (hence) neither the connection with
standardization.
In 10.3 we make some remarks on the cardinality of an equivalence
class [<R]

10.1. Some definitions of equivalence between finite reduction sequences

10.1.0. DEFINITION.
(i) (R ~ (R' <=> <R, <R' have the same first and last term. (HINDLEY [78']
calls such <R, <R' weakly equivalent.)
(ii) Let <R = M q -- ► ... -- »• M^. Then: <R <R' <=> <R ~ <R' & for every redex
R £ M q , the residuals of R via (R coincide with those of R via <R' .
(This definition is introduced by HINDLEY [78'], who calles such
(R, (R' strongly equivalent.)
(iii) (R <R' <*> <R ~ <R' & for every subteirm S c the descendants of S
via <R coincide with those of S via <R' . (This definition is proposed
by C. Wadsworth in private communication to H. Barendregt.)
(iv) <R <R' <=> <R ~ <R' & for every symbol s e M^ the descendants of s via
<R coincide with those of s via <R' .
94

(v) <R ^ <R' <==> <R/(R' = (R'/(R = 0, as in Def. 9.8.1.

L
(vi) <R « <R' , 'permutation equivalence', will be defined in Definition
1 0 .2 .2 .
(vii) The following definition is given in LEVY [78] p.41 Prop.2.2.9 and is
due to G. Berry:
<R « <R' <=> (R, <R' result from each other by repeated permutation of
B
adjacent complete developments.
(For a more precise definition see LEVY [78] p.41).

10.1.1. EXAMPLES.
I2
(i) <R
W 1 I x and <R'
2 V V 0
-> I^x. 1 / 2 serve to dis­
tinguish the occurrences of I. This example is from LEVY [78].
(ii) <R = K 1 (K2 AB)B K2AB and (R' = K^K^ABJB -> K^AB.
Ax
(iii) <R = (Ax. (Ay.A) x) B (Ay.A) B
Ilia
<R' (Ax. A[y :=x]) B
Here x i FV(A).
(iv) Let L be such that Lx — » L(Lx), to be specific:
L = [Aab.aa(aab)][Aab.aa(aab)].
— »
Then L(Lx) —jg-,» L(L(Lx))) in two different ways.

(v) Define A, B such that Ax — » A(xl) and B — » BI .

<R
Then AB ^>> A(BI) in two different ways.

For all the above examples we have <R 96• , ^ , 7^ (R' .

L R S
(vi) (R = I 1 I2 (I3 I4 X) ~ I T * I2 (I4X) — V
<R' = M '•
I2X ’
Now <R 9^, ~R , ¥'s <R' .

(vii) <R = [Az.z(zx)]l

Xi (12x) ~ r v
<R' =
T * Xix ‘
Now <R ^L , ~R , ~ s R ‘ .

(viii) Let A = Aab.aba. Then:

A0 A1 ft2 A 1 A2 A ! A2 A1 A2 A 1 A2 A 1
 95

<R' <R"

r^l rfj rL ~ rsj

R S *L R S L
<R' ck
R S "L

(ix) In general, let C be a cyclic reduction: C = -- > ... -- ► M = .

(i) 0 n 0
Let C = C * C * . . . * C ( i times). Here * denotes concatenation of
reductions.
Then (1) V. . i * j - c (1) c<«
i/3
i / j & c (l)
(2) 3i,j

PROOF. (1) Follows directly from the definitions.

(2) Is a direct consequence of the fact that there are only finitely many
binary relations on the set of subterms of MQ . (and '... descends to ...' is
a binary relation.) □

10.1.2. THEOREM.

(i) pa pa
B (1 ) ~L W
11(3)

~S Tff ~s

(ii) The implications under (i) are the only ones.

PROOF, (i) (1): see LEVY [78] p.41,42

(2) is proved in Theorem 10.2.6 below;
(3) is easily proved by tracing the subterms (or symbols) in reduction
diagrams, starting with the elementary diagrams;
(4) (=») follows since most of the symbols in a term are also subterms
(except A, and brackets);
(**) follows since either a subterm is a variable (hence a symbol} or
else it is compound, and hence determined by its outermost brackets.
Then apply the hypothesis to those bracket symbols.
96

The non-numbered implications are trivial.

(ii) That no more implications hold, follows from the preceding examples
(example (viii) suffices). □

10.1.3. REMARK. Note that all the equivalences considered in Theorem 10.1.2
have the following pleasant property:
Any two coinitial reductions ending in a normal form, are equivalent.

PROOF. Immediately, via £*. . □

""-J Li
10.2. Standard reductions and ^
--------- Li
10.2.1. DEFINITION. An anti-standard pair (a.s.pair) of reduction steps is
a reduction consisting of two steps, which is not standard.

A1 A2
10.2.1.1. REMARK. Obviously, if (R = M ---- »■ M' ---- »- M" is an a.s. pair,
*2 X1
then M = ----------- where A , A^ are the head-A's of B-redexes and A^ < A^.

10.2.2. DEFINITION, (i) RED is the set of all finite reduction sequences.
(ii) The 'meta-reduction' *=> on RED is defined as follows:
Ai A2
(1) If (R = M ---- »• M' ---- > M" is an a.s. pair, then <R «=> <R' , where
<R' is 'the' standard reduction for <R:
(R' = M M".
\_______ _______ ^
n > 0 times
(2) If (R *=> <R', then <R^ * (R * (R^ *=> <R^ * (R* * (R^.
(iii) *=>>is the transitive reflexive closure of *=> .
« is the equivalence relation generated by «=>, called permutation
equivalence.

10.2.2.1. REMARK. Note the connection between *=> and the elementary diagrams
introduced in 6.1.1, as suggested by the following figure (where A^ < A^):

n > 0 times
 97

10.2.2.2. PROPOSITION. (L^VY [78] 2.2.6 Prop.p.40).

(R * <R /(R.
1 2 1 L (R2 * <R1 /<R
2 . T.e. : let <R b e t he r i g h t - u p p e r r e d u c t i o n o f a

reduction diagram V and <R' b e t he l e f t - l o w e r r e d u c t i o n o f V ; then <R ^ <R.

L
(R

-Y
------- ^
f
V

'
-------- *

A
(R'

PROOF. Simply by 'folding out' V :

Hence indeed <R = <R * ((R /<R ) m (R' = <R * (<R /<R 1 . □
1 2 1 L 2 1 2

10.2.2.3. REMARK. Let (R be an a.s. pair and let <R => <R' . Then <R ^ <R' , as
■ L
is evident from Remark 10.2.2.1 and the preceding proposition.

10.2.2.4. PROPOSITION (LEVY [78] Prop.2.2.4).

If <R ~ (R1, then <R. * <R * (R a* <R * <R' * (R .
L 1 Z 1j 1 Z

PROOF. Immediate, by the following diagram construction:

98

<R

CM
f---------:
----------1 r t

a
<R <R !
2 !
... 1

<R‘
a !
2 i
I
ft (R
2 2

------ _*
0 0 0

(R' th en (R <^ (R' .

L

(R ~ (R' follows by Remark 10.!

L
10.2.2.4.
transitivity of ^ i
(LEVY [78]
From this, and 1 Li
lows. □

10.2.3. PROPOSITION. i s a c y c lic

PROOF. Si : is: there is a *==> --reduction

<R^ = We prove by induction on |<Rq |, the number of
steps of , that such a -cycle cannot exist. (*). The b a s i s step of the
induction is trivial.
In d u c t io n h y p o t h e s is : suppose (*) is true for |<R^| < m. Now let !<Rq ! = m+1.
Suppose for some Z < n the permuted a.s. pair is at the b e g in n in g of
as displayed below; and let Z be the l e a s t such number. Then X^ < X
and the final reduction <R must begin with the contraction of a
n
X < X < X . Hence <R ^ <R_ -
2 1 0 n 0
If there is no such Z , then erasing the first step in <R yields
0 n
again a =* -cycle <R^ ■=>...=> <R^ = <R^ where |<Rq | = m; contradiction. D
 99

<R = M X0 > ....

■> L -» •-
__ /
~^r~

fl =M_ ^ --- »
•t1 V___ y___✓
p > 0 times

a =a = m — -■■
0 n

X2 X1
10.2.3.1. REMARK. Note that <ft = I (I x) ---- ► I.x ---- ► x
------ 0 1 2 1

^ Jl J2
ft = " — ^ I 2x ~ X

is not a «=» -cycle, since we are considering reductions together with the
specification of contracted redexes. Hence <R^ ^ <R^ .

10.2.4. DEFINITION. Let <R = M ► ... ► N be a finite reduction. Then

the labeling I of M is adequate for <R iff <R can be extended to a labeled
reduction M1 -- »■ ... >■ NJ , which will be called (R1 .

10.2.4.1. PROPOSITION. Let <R = M ► ... ► N. Then there is a labeling

I of M which is adequate for <R.

PROOF. Easy. □

10.2.5. THEOREM.(i) The reduction *=> is strongly normalizing (i.e. every

sequence <R *=> <R' ==> <R" *=> .. . terminates) .
(ii)'The *=> -normal forms' are the standard reductions.
100

PROOF. (i) Suppose that there is an infinite sequence ■=» *=> ... ,
let I be a labeling which is adequate for

(Rq = M1 -- y ... (by Prop. 10.2.4.1, I exists).

Now it is easy to see that the labeling I of M1 is also adequate for

= M -- y ... ; we have only to check that things work for an a.s. pair,
as follows.
Consider the figure

Here it immediately follows (from the fact that residuals of a redex

(Ax.P)^$) have again the same degree d) that the degrees of the redexes con­
tracted from A to D to C are the same as the degrees d^,d^ t^ie rec^exes
contracted from A to B to C. Further, the labeling I was adequate for <R^,
hence d^,d^ > Hence 1 is also adequate for <R^.
So the supposed infinite sequence extends to the infinite sequence of
labeled reductions

=\ <

N*/ \1/
 101

Now by SN for labeled reduction (Theorem 8.14), every labeled reduction

starting from M1 must terminate. Hence, by Konigs Lemma, there are only
finitely many such reductions. Hence the sequence => <R^ ==» ... must con­
tain a cycle. Contradiction with Prop.10.2.3.

PROOF of (ii) . Suppose <R is not standard. Claim: then contains an a.s.
pair. For, let

k-1
M
« - Mo V i +i n
\j__ -- v-----
a.s. pair

where k is the least number s.t. -- >- ... -- > ^ + 1 **"s not standard. Then
it is not hard to see that M^_^ -- * y ^ + 1 is 311 a 's ‘ Pair-
From the claim it follows immediately that the endpoints of maximal
*=» -sequences are standard reductions. □

2.5.1. COROLLARY (Standardization theorem).

V<R 3(R' <R ~ <R* & <R' is standard.

PROOF. Every *=> -reduction of leads to a standard reduction <R' for <R, by
theorem 10.2.5. □

Next we will show that every maximal •=> -reduction of ends in a

unique standard reduction for <R. We can proceed in two ways: prove
directly that *=> has the WCR property, by means of checking several cases:

Then by Newman's Lemma 5.7.(1) we have CR and hence UN (Uniqueness of Nor­

mal form) for *==> . The other way is as follows.

10.2.6. THEOREM. <R w <R' <=> 61 ^ <R» .

L
 102

PROOF. (=») is Lemma 10.2.2.5.

(<=) Suppose <R a* <R', so P(<R,<R') is like:
L

We will show that one can directly read off a 'conversion', say
««=**=*>*=*...... f=* «=* <R' , from p ((R/(R,} ^

Remember the 'construction of diagrams' (6.1), which proceeded as in

the figure, by adjoining elementary diagrams:

Here <R ,<R are the two given coinitial reductions; the 'conversion' (i.e.
1 1 *1
a sequence of -- >• and ■<-— ) TQ = 1 » 'reduces' to the conversion
via T.

Now suppose we have the completed diagram 0 0 ^ , d y available, and con­

sider the following procedure of again filling up the diagram; but now
starting from the upper right corner:

This 'dual' procedure is in fact a «=> -conversion of the reduction R to

R4 via R. That is, every adjunction of an elementary diagram □ corresponds
either to
 103

(1) a *=> -reduction step, in case □ is

K i
p>0 times

or (2) an *=> -expansion, in case □ is p>0

times

or (3) a trivial step, in case □ is

1
I I
r--- f
1

So filling up V((R^,(R^) in this way yields a *=> -conversion, interlaced with

trivial steps, of reductions which are also interlaced with trivial steps.
Omitting all the trivial steps, one gets the desired proper *=> -conversion

from & 3 = ^ * ((R2 ^ V t0 ^4 = ^2 * (<R1 ^ V “

In particular, for the (R, (R' s.t. <R =* <R' we have a *=> -conversion be-
L
tween them. □

Before formulating the corollaries of this theorem, we need the

10.2.7. PROPOSITION. Let (R^, <R^ be standard reductions and suppose that
(R ~ (R . Then (R = (R .
L 2 1 2

PROOF. This is Prop.2.3.2 in LEVY [78] p.43. We have also proved it, in
Theorem 9.8.3. (ii). □

10.2.8. COROLLARY. (i) Every « -equivalence class contains a unique

'*=> -normal form1 (i.e. standard reduction).
(ii) «==> is CR
(iii) Standardization Theorem, strenghtened version:
For every <R there is a unique standard reduction <R' « <R.

PROOF, (i) , (iii). Consider an equivalence class [<R]^ = {(R'/d* « <R'}. By

Theorem 10.2.4. (i) there is at least one -normal form' in [(R] . Now
suppose there are two different *=> -normal forms <R^ ,<R^ as in the figure
below.
By Theorem 10.2.5(ii), <R^ are stan3ard. BY definition of w,
^1 w ^2' anC^ hence ky Theorem 10.2.6 <R^ ^ <R^. Therefore, by Proposition
10.2.7, <R. = <R0 .
1 2
104

(ii) We have just proved the uniqueness of •==» -normal forms (UN) . Together
with SN for «=> (Theorem 10.2.5(D) this yields CR (by Lemma 5.7. (2)).

10.2.8.1. REMARK, (i) Corollary 10.2.8. (i) and (iii) are due to LEVY [78];
see 2.3.4 Corollaire.
(ii) Theorem 10.2.6 is very close to Prop.2.2.9, due to G. Berry, in LEVY
[78] p.41, where it is proved that « = —T ; or Prop.I.2.7 p.25 in BERRY-
B L
LEVY [79] where the analogous fact for 'Recursive Program Schemes' is
proved. The theorem is even closer to a remark on p.25 of BERRY-LEVY [79]:
"In fact, it is possible to generalize this congruence only by the permu­
tation lemma of 1.1.4". This remark amounts to: for Recursive Program
Schemes, ^ coincides with the equivalence generated by <=>, where <=> is the
symmetric closure of «=» for RPS's.

10.2.9. REMARK. Note the following correspondence between the present proof
of the Standardization Theorem and the proof in section 9: in the latter
proof we had the 'standardization diagram'

<R
V = VUR,(R ) =
s s

having the property that steps moving to the right (see the figure above),
do not split. Otherwise said, case (2) in the proof of Theorem 10.2.6 does
not apply here. Hence the above procedure yields not only a «=> -conversion
 105

from fl to fl , but even a r=> -reduction from fl to fl : (see figure)

s s
a

<R reduces to (R in six proper -steps.

s

From the proof of theorem 10.2.6 we obtain the following

10.2.10. COROLLARY. Let <R’,61" be two reduction paths in a diagram

having the same begin and end point. Then <R' « (R".

10.2.10.1. REMARK. By Theorem 10.1.2 hence also <R' ~ (R". So each symbol in
s
B traces back to a unique father symbol in A, regardless of the chosen
path. (For A3r)-reduction diagrams this property is lost, as we will see in
Ch.IV.)

10.3. The cardinality of equivalence classes [<R!J

In this subsection we will make a few remarks on [(R] :

(1) in the A$-calculus card. [(R]^ can be any number < N , in Al-calculus
x
and A -calculus (typed A-calculus) any n < but not
(2) we will give a condition for an (R to have card. [(R]^ = and show
106

that this property of (R is not decidable.

10.3.1. EXAMPLES.
Notation: MI := Mil__ I(n times I); KI is short for Ax.I.
= 0303; 03 = Ax. xx.

(i) « = KI(II~n) -- >• KI(II~n-1) -- *- ... KI (II) -- >• KII -- >- I

n .________________ ,

H
<R . .. KI (II)
n-1

-- KI(III)
n-2

This example shows that Vn e IN 3<R card [<RI^ = n + 1.

(ii) Let <R = Kin — ► Kin — ► ... — ► Kin — ► i
n
------- v
V------ '
n times
Then (C«0 V ») is an infinite ascending chain:
<R <==* (R <=* d
(iii) The next example shows that also in Al-calculus card [<R]^ can be any
finite number > 0:
~n .
Let <R II (II) II^I (EII^+1) I.
Then card [<R H = n + 2.
n «

10.3.2. PROPOSITION. There is no infinitely upwardly branching point in

([(R]^, «==>) , as in the figure:

PROOF. Let us distinguish two kinds of *=> -steps:

(a) those in which the "contractum" (or permutation) of the a.s. pair con­
sists of at least two -- >• -steps:
 107

-- A ---- > B --- ► C --

‘---Y-- 1

11
-- A ---- y B' C --
J----v----/
p>l times

(b) those in which the contractum is just one -- y -step.

They can only be of the form

-- <C[KAB] ---- ► <C[KAB'] --- y C [ A ] ---

'----------------- V------------------- *

II
-- <C[KAB] ---- ► <C[a ]

where (E[ ] is some context, KA := Ax.A (xiFV(A)), and B -»- B'.

Now consider an <R' as in the above figure. Only finitely many subreductions
of <R' can be the contractum of an a.s. pair. (<R" is subreduction of
<R' <=> 3 <R -<R (R * <R" * <R = <R* .)
def. 1 2 1 2

In case (a) the original a.s. pair is completely determined by the con­
tractum.
In case (b) there are just as many original a.s. pairs as B has redexes.
Hence (R1 can be reached by one «=> -step from at most finitely many <R". D

10.3.3. DEFINITION, (i) Let M e Ter(A). Then °°(M) will mean: M is not SN
(strongly normalizing), i.e. M has an infinite reduction. (Par abus de
langage: 'M is infinite'.)
(ii) If fl is a finite reduction, <R^ will denote the unique standard reduc­
tion « <R.
(iii) [flT := {«■/«■ -►> <R}
(iv) A step C[KAB] y c[A]is called erasing. Here KA := (Ax.A) where
x i FV(A). The term B is called the argument of the redex KAB.

10.3.3.1. PROPOSITION. The property °° of A-terms is undecidable.

PROOF. Suppose 00 were decidable Then so was the property "M is SN", in
particular for Al-terms M. Hence for Al-terms M, the property "M has a
normal form" would be decidable; but is a well-known fact that this is not
108

the case. (See e.g. BARENDREGT [80].) □

10.3.4. DEFINITION. Let $ e Ter(A). The labeling I is called strongly ade­

quate for Q, iff I is adequate for every reduction $ -- > ... -- ► ©' (see
Def. 10.2.4).

10.3.4.1. PROPOSITION. Let Q e Ter(X). Then: Q is strongly normalizing <=»

f) has a strongly adequate labeling.

PROOF. (<=) Follows by SN for labeled reduction (Theorem 8.14) .

(=>) Suppose $) e SN. Then, by Konig's Lemma, there are only finitely many
reductions <R = Q -- >• ... -- »• ©' (j = 1, .. .,n) . Let I be a labeling of fl)
which is adequate for <R (by Proposition 10.2.4.1, I_. exists). Then take
I = max._^ I . in the obvious sense. Now I is strongly adequate for
©- □

10.3.5. DEFINITION. Let (R1 = M1 -- >■ ... -- > NJ be a labeled reduction. Then
(R1 is called special iff

(i) (R erases only strongly normalizing arguments (i.e. if <R contains a

step ... KAB ... -- ► ... A ..., then B e SN) .
(ii) Whenever (R contains an erasing step as in (i) and B e SN, then the
induced labeling of B is strongly adequate for B.

10.3.5.1. PROPOSITION. If <R = M -- »■ ... -- »- N erases only strongly normal­

izing arguments, then (R can be extended to a special labeled reduction
fl1 = M1 -- ► . .. -- ► NJ .

PROOF. Routine. □

10.3.6. LEMMA. If <R *=» <R and <R* is special, then (R^ Is special.

PROOF. Suppose (R^ *=* <R^ and <R* is special. Corresponding to (i) , (ii) in
Def. 10.3.5 we have
(i) to show that (R^ does not erase infinite arguments. Suppose (R^ does
erase an infinite argument:
<R2 = (R * C[KAB] -- ► <C[a ] * <R', where “ (B).
Now there are three cases.

CASE 1. The displayed erasing step is not a member of the a.s. pair of
steps, which is 'permuted' in <R^ *=» <R^. Then <R contains the same erasing
 109

step, and (R^ erases an infinite argument; contradicting the assumption that
(ft* is special.

CASE 2 . The displayed erasing step is the left step of the permuted a.s.
pair of steps. There are three subcases.

Case 2.1. Then

ft = ... <E'[(Ax.— KA(x)B(x)— )D] -— >• I'[(Ax.— A(x)— )D]
^ )y
— -— >■ C'[— a (D)— ] ► and
(R^ = ... C'[— KA (D) B (D)— ] »■ C'[— A (D)— ] ► and now 6^ erases
B(D) which is still infinite.

Case 2.2.
<r = ... - <£'[ (Ax.P(x) ) (--KAB--)] -- » <E'[ (Ax.P (x) ) (— A— ) ]
2
Ax
C '[P (— A— ) ] ► ... and
Ax
C '[P (— KAB— ) ]
^----------- y ------------ /
p>0 times
c 'Up (— a — ) ] — ► ...
Here p > 0 is the multiplicity of the occurrence of x in P(x). If p > 1,
then (ft, erases the infinite term B; and if p = 0, then (ft erases the in-
1 Ax 1
finite argument (— KAB— ) in the step --- ► .

Case 2.3. KAB is disjoint from the Ax-redex. Then (R^ erases B, trivial.

CASE 3. The displayed erasing step <C[KAB] --- »- C[a ] is the right step of
the permuted a.s. pair. Let the redex contracted in the left step of the
a.s. pair, begin with Ax. Again there are three subcases. Let R' be the
contractum of the Ax-redex.

Case 3.1. H' c A: then (R^ erases B

Case 3.2. R* c B. Then:

• «[KA(— (Xx.P(x) )®— ) C[KA(— P ( $ ) ~ ) -i- «[a ]
«2 =
and flj = ... — ► C[KA(— (Xx.P (x) )Q— ) ] <c [a ] »■ ...
Now since B = — P($)— is infinite, — (Ax.P(x))$— is also infinite. So
also (ft^ erases an infinite argument.

Case 3.3. Similar to case 2.3.

So in all cases 1,2,3 the assumption that is special is contradict­

ed. This proves (i).
110

(ii) To show: (1) I is adequate for <R_ , and (2) if B„,...,B are the arqu-
2 1 m
ments erased by R (so by (i) B, ,.. .,B e SN) and are their in-
2 1 m 1 m
duced labelings, then 1^,...,1^ are strongly adequate for B^,...,B.
The proof of (1) is easy. (Cf. the proof of Theorem 10.2.5 in which
the converse was proved: if (R^ *==> ^ and 1 is adequate for (R^, then I is
adequate for (R^. As in that proof, it is sufficient to consider the case
that <R is an a.s. pair. See the figure in the proof of Theorem 10.2.5.)
To prove (2), we distinguish two cases.

Case (a) . The step (R^ *=* <R^ is of type (a) , as in the proof of Proposition
10.3.2. This is the easy case, as an inspection will show.

Case (b) . The step (R^ *=► <R^ is of type (b) . I.e., the "contractum" of the
a.s. pair consists of just one step:

«2 = ... --► eCKAB1 '] h i CCKAB:1”] -hii- (C[A] — ► ...

<s1f = ... — ►c [kab*1 ] — >■<e[a ] — *■ ...

We have only to consider the steps (*), (**) in (R*, since the other steps
I I ^
of (R coincide with steps of <R .
^ I
The assumption is that the induced labeling I' of B. (in (R^) is
strongly adequate for B^. Now in the step (*) which reduces B_^ to B^, some­
thing can be erased; say this is CJ . Then C is SN and J is strongly adequate
J X1 I
for C, since C c b . in (R. . Also it is clear that in the step (**) I" is
1 1 I" I'
strongly adequate for B^, since B| is a reduct of B_^ . This proves (ii) . □

f
10.3.7. THEOREM. Let <R be a finite reduction. Then: [<R] is infinite <=> <R
erases an infinite argument.

PROOF. (<=) Suppose <R erases an infinite argument:

(R = ... -- y eCKAB] -- y <e [a ] -- y ... where °°(B) .
Let B : B q -- ► B^ -- >■ B^ -- >■ ... be an infinite reduction of B.
Define for all n e U :
(R = ... — y <c[KAB] — ► CCKAB. ] — ► ... — y c[KAB ] — y <c [a ] — y ...
n I n
Then obviously <R = <R «=* (R <=» <R <=*... .
a u i z x
Hence [(Rj is infinite.
(=>) Let us first remark that by Proposition 10.3.2 and Konig's Lemma:
 Ill

[<ft] is infinite <=» there is an infinite 'ascending' sequence

<r <=» <R« <=. <R"
Now suppose that the implication which is to be proved, does not hold.
So suppose that [(R] is infinite, hence that there is a sequence
<R <=> <R' <=» ..., but that (R nevertheless erases only strongly normalizing
arguments.
Then by Proposition 10.3.5.1, (R can be extended to a special labeled
reduction (R1 . By Lemma 10.3.6 we have now an infinite sequence of special
labeled reductions (R1 <==» (R'1 «==* <R"^ <=* ... .
But that is impossible, since there are only finitely many labeled reduc­
tions of M1 (the first term of (R1, (R'1 ,...) and since •=> is acyclic. (This
is the same argument as at the end of the proof of Theorem 10.2.5.(i),
but now for an 'ascending' *=> -sequence, instead of a descending one.) 0

10.3.8. COROLLARY. Let (R be a finite reduction.

(i) [<R] is infinite <=> <R erases an infinite argument.
ph s
(ii) In Al-calculus [(R] is finite, for every <R.
x
Similarly in X -calculus (typed X-calculus).
(iii) The property 'C<R]^ is infinite' is not decidable.

It
PROOF, (i) C<R3w = [<Rg]L / by Corollary 10.2.8, (i), (ii) . Hence the result
follows from the preceding theorem.
(ii) At once by the preceding theorem, since in Al-calculus there is no
T T I
erasing and in X -calculus there are no 'infinite' terms (i.e. X f=SN,
Theorem 8.14).
(iii) By (i) and Proposition 10.3.3.1. □

10.3.9 . EXAMPLE, (i) Let <R be (Ax. KI (xx) )m -- ► (Ax.I)m -- ► I, where

03 = Ax.xx.
Then ([<R]^,e=>) is as in the figure:

11

<R
s
112

Note that in & no infinite subterm is erased, contrary to

(ii) . Let R be a reduction from M = [Ax.KI (Irnx) ]a) to I.

Then ([R] , •=») can be pictured as follows (at each node there is a reduc­
tion which ±'j indicated as a tuple in an obvious shorthand.)
 113

11. NORMALIZATION

11.0. DEFINITION, (i) Let M e \P (a definable extension of A-calculus),

and R,R' be $- or P-redexes in M. Then: R is to the left of R', notation
R < R', if the head-symbol of R (X or P) is to the left of that of R' .
(ii) R c M is the leftmost redex in M iff R < R' for every redex R' in M.
The leftmost redex is also called the normal redex, for a reason that
will be clear soon.
(iii) A reduction (finite or infinite) is normal (or leftmost) if it
proceeds by contracting in each step the leftmost redex. A leftmost step
will be denoted as — =-- >- .
lm"
(iv) A reduction (R = -- »■ ... is quasi-normal if it is finite, or
else if

Vi 3j > i M.
lm
. ..
3 3+1

Quasi-normal reductions are also called eventually leftmost reductions.

(v) A reduction is maximal if it ends in a normal form, or is infinite.
(vi) A class C of maximal reductions is said to be normalizing if for all
<R e C:
(R(0) has a normal form =» (R ends in this normal form. Here <R(0) is
the first term of (R; see the following notational convention.
('Par abus de langage' we will henceforth just say: 'such-and-such
reductions are normalizing' instead of 'the class of maximal s.a.s. re­
ductions is normalizing'.)

11.0.1. REMARK. The terminology 'normalizing', 'normal redex' and 'Nor­

malization Theorem' is historical (from CURRY, FEYS [58]). One should not
confuse the property asserted by the Normalization Theorem 11.2 with the
properties WN and SN (Weak and Strong Normalization), which do not hold
for A3.

11.1. NOTATION. Let <R = MQ -- ► Mj *

(i) Then write <R(n) = M for all n (for which M is defined).
(ii) m M
n n 'n+1
(fl) . -- ► M .
n n
So (R = = fl(0) -- ► «(1)
n («) * («) n
114

11.2. NORMALIZATION THEOREM

Normal reductions are normalizing.

PROOF. Let <R = M — » N where N is in normal form. By the Standardization

Theorem (9.7), there is a standard reduction <R = M — » N. Moreover, <R is
s s
a normal reduction. For suppose not, then (R^ 'by-passes' in some step the
leftmost redex. By the usual arguments, one proves easily that this by­
passed redex has a residual in N. But N is a normal form. Contradiction. □

Next we will prove that quasi-normal reductions are normalizing too.

For an alternative proof see BARENDREGT [80]; the reason for including an
alternative proof here is that it lends itself to a generalization to ABn~
calculus (Ch.IV).

10.3. PROPOSITION. Let <R = M^ -- >- M, -- »- ... be a quasi-normal (qn)re-

----------- qn 0 1 ^ ^
duction. Them
(i) = M^ -- > M^+i -- * *-s a qn reduction,
(ii) if <R = Nq --- >• . . . --- »■ Mq is an arbitrary reduction ,also
<R * <R = N^ -- > ... -- »■ M_ -- >■ M„ -- >■ ... is qn.
qn 0 0 1

PROOF. Trivial from the definitions. □

11.4. DEFINITION. Let <R = MQ -- > M^ -- >■ ... be a finite or infinite re­
duction and R c m some redex in <R.
~ n
R is called secured in <R iff eventually there are no residuals of R
left (i.e. some contains no residuals of R ) .

11.5. LEMMA. Let <R = M^ -- >• ... be a qn-reduction, and let R c m ^ be the
----- qn 0 “ 0
leftmost redex.
Then R is secured in <R
qn
PROOF. Almost trivial: the first leftmost step in <R_^ contracts the unique
residual of R. □

11.6. COROLLARY (Quasi-normalization Theorem).

Quasi-normal reductions are normalizing.

PROOF. Suppose M has a normal form N. Let <R = M — N be the normal re­
duction to N.
 115

Now suppose that an infinite quasi-normal (R , starting with M, exists.

qn

(ft ) i
qn n

By the preceeding lemma, and the Parallel Moves Lemma (6.12) for some n
the projection {r ^}/(<R ) = 0 .
0 qn n
By Proposition 11.3, [ (fl ) /{Rn }] * (<R ) is again quasi-normal, hence
qn n 0 n qn ^
R 1 ~ M1 ^ secured it-
Repeating this argument we get a k such that

<R / (<R ) =
n qn k 0,
and because M^ = N is in normal form, also

k n = 0.
(ftqn )./«'

Hence M^ M N, i.e. <R ends in the normal form. □

n qn

12. COFINAL REDUCTIONS

The reduction graph G (M) of a term M, that is the structure

<{N/M — » n }, -- * >, can be quite complicated and sometimes it is very
useful to know a cofinal reduction path <R = M -- ► M' -- ► m " -- y in
c
116

G(M), in order to reduce properties of the whole graph G (M) to properties

of (ft .
c

12.1. DEFINITION. c(ft is a cofinal reduction path in G (M) iff

VN £ G (M) 3n, € 3N N — » (ft (n) .
c

In BARENDREGT e.a. [77] some typical applications of cofinal reductions

can be found. In BARENDREGT e.a. [76] (Ch.II) it is proved that a certain
kind of reduction called Knuth-Gross reduction is cofinal (for AB as well
as ABn). For technical applications, sometimes one needs a refinement of
this result. Such a refinement will be proved now. In Chapter IV the same
is done for ABn-calculus.

12.2. DEFINITION. (ft is called secured iff every redex R in (ft is secured in
(ft. (I.e.: iff Vn Vredex R c (R(n) R is secured in ((ft) .)
“ n
(See also Definition 11.4.)

REMARK. Obviously, for all n: (ft is secured <=> ((ft)^ is secured.

The next theorem is obtained independently in MICALL [78], where as

an application a 'space saving' reduction strategy is given. When writing
this section, we learned that the theorem occurs moreover in O'DONNELL [77],
where it is proved in an abstract setting; see Theorem 8 and 8'. Our 'se­
cured ' reductions are called there 'complete'.

12.3. THEOREM. Let (ft be a reduction path in G(M) . Then: (ft is secured => (ft
is cofinal.
 117

PROOF. Let the secured reduction <R = M -- > ... and an arbitrary reduction
<R' = m -- > ... -- y N be given. We have to prove that N — » (R(k) for some k.
Construct I?(<R* ,<R) (see figure). Now for some iQ , <R(iQ) does not contain a
residual of R^. Hence by PM(6.12): {Rg}/ig(<R) - 0-
By the remark after 12.2 also (iQ (<R) /{Rg}) * (<R) iQ is secured.
Hence for some i^: ({Rq }*{R1}) /±1 (<R) = 0. So for some k,(R'/k ((R) = 0;
i.e. N — » <R(k) . □

12.3.1. REMARK. The converse implication does not hold; counterexample:

Let M = Az.zftft where ft = (Ax.xx)(Ax.xx), and consider
(R = m -- y M -- y M -- y ... where every time the right occurrence of ft is
contracted.

12.4. DEFINITION. Let M be a AP-term. Consider the set of all B-redexes and
P-redexes in M, and let N be the result of a complete development of all
those redexes. Then N is unique (by FD, Theorem 4.1.11 and Prop.6.3).

NOTATION: M ---- y N. Here — — stands for 'Knuth-Gross'-reduction. A Knuth-

------— — KG KG
Gross reduction is a sequence of KG-'steps'.
Knuth-Gross reduction is called the 'full computation rule' for Re­
cursive Program Schemes (see MANNA [74]).
118

12.5. COROLLARY. Knuth-Gross reductions (in XP) are cofinal.

PROOF. After each complete development of the total set of redexes of M, no

.residuals are left of the redexes in M. And so on. Hence the KG-reduction is
secured. □

12.6. DEFINITION. <R is a quasi-KG-reduction if it is finite or contains in­

finitely many KG-reduction 'steps'.

12.7. COROLLARY. Ouasi-KG-reductions (in XP) are cofinal.

RO
PROOF. Let NL ---- >• M, --- ► ... --- ► M be a finite reduction, and let <R
----- 0 1 n
be a quasi-KG-reduction. Let A - ■■■--> B the first KG-step in <R. (See figure.)
KG
Now by PM(6.12) A — » C is a development of the residuals of R^, and
hence (since — -— >- is in fact a complete development of all the redexes in
KG
B) B — » D is the empty reduction. Repeating this argument, we find that in­
deed M — » (R(m) for some m. □
n
 119

CHAPTER II

REGULAR COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS

In this chapter we introduce a generalization of the reduction systems

in Chapter I (subsystems of definable extensions of Aft-calculus, such as
AI, CL, Recursive Program Schemes), which we will call 'Combinatory Reduc­
tion Systems' (CRS). A CRS is in fact a TRS (Term Rewriting System) pos­
sibly with bound variables. So we will consider variable-binding mechanisms
other than the usual one in A-calculus; see Remarks 1.17, 1.18, 1.20 below
for a general discussion and a comparison with some notions of 'reduction
system* which occur in the literature.
We will consider in the present chapter only CRS's with two well-known
constraints: the reduction rules must be 'left-linear' and the 'non-ambi­
guity' property must be satisfied. For reasons of economy we use the ab­
breviation

regular = left-linear & non-ambiguous.

(In Chapter III we will consider some non-left-linear CRS's.)

In Section 1 we introduce the concept of a regular CRS. Section 2 con­
tains the definitions of 'descendant' for regular CRS's (via labels, as in
1.3), and of 'development'. In Section 3 a proof of the Church-Rosser theo­
rem for regular CRS's is given; this is done via an analysis of combinatory
reductions into a 'term rewriting part' (as in CL) and a 'substitution
past' (as in A). Some non-trivial technical propositions are required to
prove even the simple property WCR for regular CRS's (Lemma 3.10). In this
stage the Finite Developments theorem and its corollaries CR+ , PM (analogous
to resp. Thm. 1.4.1.11 and its corollaries 1.6.9 and 1.6.12) are not yet
proved; to obtain FD, which is a Strong Normalization result, we introduce
'reductions with memory' and generalize a method of R. Nederpelt to the
class of regular CRS's. Using this method, which seems interesting for its
120

own sake, we obtain FD and hence CR+ , PM? now a large part of Chapter I
generalizes at once to regular CRS's (e.g. Levy-equivalence of reductions).
In Section 5 we investigate the property 'non-erasing' and state a
generalization of Church's Theorem (1.7.5) for regular non-erasing CRS's.
In Section 6 we explore further conditions which ensure Strong Normal­
ization for regular CRS's ? as in Section 5, an application in Proof Theory
is given. We prove here a generalization of Theorem 1.8.14 (A*^ |= SN, etc.).
Furthermore, Levy's method of labeling (1.3.9) is generalized to all regular
CRS's, together with the corresponding SN result. This yields a tool to
prove the Standardization and Normalization Theorem for a restricted class
of regular CRS's (viz. the 'left-normal' ones).

1. COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS

In this section we will define the concept of a Combinatory Reduction

System (CRS). A CRS E will be a pair <Ter (E) ,{pViel}> where Ter(E) is the
set of terms of E and where the are reduction relations on Ter(E).
So a CRS is a special kind of ARS, as in 1.5. The reduction relations
are generated by reduction rules r^; Red(E) = -fe Viel} is the set of re­
duction rules of E. Ter(E) is built inductively from the alphabet of E. In
order to define the r^ (iel), we will use meta-variables (written as Z plus
sub- and superscripts) in a formal way? that is, they serve to define the
set Mter(E) of meta-terms. There will be meta-variables of 'arity O', as
in the definition of, say, the reduction rules for CL:

5 Z 1Z2Z3 Z1Z3 (Z2Z3>

KZ1Z2 ~ V
but also of arity > 0, to allow a description of reduction rules involving
substitution, as e.g. in the rules for m > 1:

6m
_ = (XX1
1 • • -X m
m-Z0
n (X1
1 ' • • • 'X m
J )lZ 1 • • -Z m
m Vz
i..V
(see I.4.2.1). Here Z^ is m-air and the other meta-variables are 0-air.
Our universe of discourse in this and the next Chapter is the class
of CRS's; this class will be closed under the formation of substructures,
as defined for ARS's in Def.I.5.10. In fact that definition has to be
 121

slightly extended, since in that case only one reduction relation is pre­
sent. Therefore:

1.0. DEFINITION. Let I = <S,{r±/±el}> and E ' = <S',{ r V i e l '}> be ARS's.

Then E ' c £ (£' is a substructure of E) iff

(i) S' c s and I* c i,

(ii) for all i e I', r| is the restriction of r^ to S',
(iii) S' is closed under r^, for all i € I.

1.1. DEFINITION. The alphabet of a CRS consists of

(i) a countably infinite set Var = {x,y,z,...} of variables,

(ii) the improper symbols (,,,),[,]
(iii) some set Q = {0./iel} of constants
(iv) a set of metavariables Mvar = (zVi,k e UN }.

Here k is called the arity of Z..

l

(REMARK. As in Chapter I, the metavariables in, say, a rule as Kz^Z^ -- ► Z^

or (Ax .Zq (x ))Z^ -- y ZQ (Z^) will range over the set of terms; but here we
will treat the metavariables in a more formal way, using valuations.)

1.2. DEFINITION. The set Ter of terms of a CRS with the above alphabet is
defined inductively by

(i) Q u Var c Ter

(ii) x e Var, A e Ter =» [x]A € Ter (abstraction)
(iii) A,B e Ter => (AB) e Ter (application)

provided A is not of the form [x]A'.

1.3. REMARK, (i) CRS's having an alphabet and terms as defined above but
without the metavariables of positive arity, without 1.2(ii) and without
the proviso in 1.2(iii), are known as Term Rewriting Systems (TRS's); see
e.g. HUET [78]. These are CRS's 'without substitution', such as CL.
(ii) The proviso in Definition 1.2(iii) is not really necessary, but no-
tationally pleasant; see Remark 1.9 below.
(iii) In [x]A the displayed occurrence of x is said to bind the free oc­
currences of x in A. The definition of the notions 'free and bound variable'
is analogous to that in the case of A-calculus (see 1.1) . There are the
usual problems due to a-conversion (renaming of bound variables, see 1.1.6),
122

but as usual they can safely be ignored (here anyway).

We will adopt the convention that all the abstractors [x] in a term be
different.
(iv) The usual notational convention of 'association to the left' (as in
1.1.2) will be employed. Outer brackets will be omitted. We write an n-
fold abstraction term [x,][x„] ...[x ]A as [x,x_...x ]a or [x]A. A term
^ l n 1 2* ^ n
Q[x ]A for some constant £) e Q will be written as Qx.A.

1.4 . EXAMPLE, (i) Let E be a CRS such that X e Q. Then (((A[x](xx))X)

e Ter(E). Using the notational conventions above this term may be written
(Xx.xx)X. Another E-term: (Xx.xx)[yz](yyz).
(In practice we won't need and will not consider such pathological
"A-terms", but in this stage we want to be as liberal as possible in our
term formation.)
(ii) Let E be a CRS such that {3,V,&, =} c Q. Then 3y. Vx. & (=xx)(=yy) is
a E-term.

1.5. REMARK. ACZEL [78] employs a different notation, in which every term
is denoted by an n-ary function (n>0): F(A.,...,A ) instead of our FA, __ A .
I n I n
The two notations are practically equivalent; our notation yields more
terms, viz. also F,FA ,FA ,... are subterms of FA....A . (However, when
1 2 I n
A-terms are present one can use Ax....x . F(x,,...,x ) instead of F,
1 n 1 n
Ax_...x .F(A.,x_,...,x ) instead of FA., and so on.) We have preferred our
2 n 1 2 n 1
notation to conform with the notation in Chapter I.
Instead of our set Q of constants, ACZEL [78] uses a set F = {F^/iel}
of forms, each form having an arity <k^,...,k >, an n-tuple of natural num­
bers (n>0). A form of arity < > (n=0) is called there a constant, a form
of arity <0,0,...,0> is called a simple form. Term formation in ACZEL [78]
is as follows:

(i) Var £ Ter

(ii) if F e F with arity <k ,— ,k > and A ____,A e Ter, then
-»• * n 1 n
F([x.]A.,...,[x ]A ) e Ter, where [x.] (i = l,...,n) is a string of
l i n n 1
k. variables.
1
So e.g. 'application' .(-,-) is a simple form of arity <0,0>, and 'A-ab-
straction' A ([-]-) is a form of arity <1>. The recursor R is a simple form
of arity <0,0,0>. An interesting non-simple form of arity <1,1,0> is en­
countered when derivations in "Natural Deduction' are reduced to a normal
 123

form; see Example 1.12.(v).

1.6. DEFINITION. (1) The set Mter of meta-terms over the alphabet as in
Def.1.1 is defined inductively as follows:
(1) , (ii), (iii) as in Def.1.2, replacing Ter by Mter
(iv) .H , e Mter => Z^ e Mter, for all k,i > 0.

(2) A meta-tern H is called closed, if it contains no free variables, i.e.

if every x e Var occurring in H is bound by an occurrence of [x].

REMARK ad (1): So in particular 0-ary meta-variables are meta-terms. On the

other hand, n+l-ary meta-variables are not in Mter. The purpose of the
brackets in Z^ (H^,...,Hk ) will be clarified in 1.10, 1.11 below. Further­
more, note that Ter c Mter.
As in ACZEL [78], we will use H, H', ,... as "meta-meta-variables"
ranging over Mter.

1.7. DEFINITION of formation trees corresponding to meta-terms.

Let H e Mter. Then x(H), the formation tree of H, is defined by induction
on the formation of H as follows.

(i) t (x) = x, xtOj = ^

(ii) t ([x ]H) = [x]

1
T( )
(iii) t (AB) =

(iv) t (Z(H ,...,1^)) = Z(Hl(...,Hk) (k>0)

124

1.8. EXAMPLE, (i) The terms in Example 1.4 have formation trees

X X

l \ 1
1 i

-
1 \
[x] X

i
i
—i
_>ii—
[x]
1 T
1
X X
V
1 1
1 1
X y
X [x]
/ \ 1
Y z
&

\ \
X X y y

1 2 0
I The meta-term (Xx.Z^(x))Z (yfZ ) has the formation tree

[l] z 2 (y ,z °
3)

ZJ (x)

1.9. REMARK. Note that by the restriction in Def.1.2.(iii), an [x] has

only one successor in t (H). Without this restriction, we would have forma­
tion trees like

t ((Cx]A)B)

suggesting that the free occurrences of x in both tA and t B are bound by

[x], which is not intended since the scope of [x] in ([x]A)B does not ex­
tend to B. So the restriction in Def.1.2.(iii) yields the pleasant property
 125

that the scope of a variable x equals the whole subtree below that occur­
rence of x in the formation tree.

1.10. DEFINITION. (1) A valuation p is a map Mter -> Ter such that
p (Z_^) = A(x^,... ,x^) , i.e. p assigns to a k-ary metavariable a term plus
a specification of k variables.
(2) The valuation p is extended to a map Mter -*■ Ter, also denoted by p, as
follows:

(i) p (x) = x, p (Q1 ) = 0.

(ii) p(Cx]H) = [x]p(H)
(iii) P(H1H2) = p(Hj)p(H2)
(iv) p(Z*(H ,...,1^)) = p(Z*) (pH1# ...

Here in (iv) it is meant that if p(Z.) = A(x ,...,x ) then

k i l k
p(Z.)(pH ,...,pH ) := A(pH ,..., pH ), i.e. the result of the simultaneous
i 1 k l k
substitution of pH. for x. (i = l,...,k) in A.
i i

1.10.1. REMARK. Given a meta-term H and a valuation p, the term pH is ob­

tained by performing a number of nested simultaneous substitutions.
Hence one can ask whether the order in which these substitutions are
performed, affects the end result- and one may even ask if there is always
an end result. That indeed every execution of the simultaneous substitu­
tions terminates in a unique result, is a consequence of A3m |= SN (Theorem
I.4.2.5, stating that all developments are finite in A3 -calculus), and of
m
A3 b WCR (the weak Church-Rosser property for underlined A3 -calculus,
— m m
which is easy to check).

2 1 0
1.10.2. EXAMPLE. Let Z , Z , Z be resp. a binary, an unary, and a 0-ary
metavariable. Let H = Z2 (Z2 (Z^,tP) , Z*(Z^)) and let p be a valuation such
that:

p(Z2) = A(x,y) where A = xyxz

ptZ1) = B (z) where B = xzy
p(Z°) = u.

Then p(H) = pZ2 (pZ2 (pZ°,pZ°),pz*(pZ°)) = the unique result of a complete

^-development of (Axy.A(x,y)) ((Axy.A(x,y) )uu) ((Az.B(z))u) =
=. uuuz (xuy) (uuuz) z .
126

1.11. DEFINITION. (-1) A reduction rule (in ACZEL [78]: contraction scheme)
is a pair (H^,H2) of meta-terms, written as -> H2 , such that

(1) the top of t (H^) is a constant 0^,

(ii) , H2 are closed,
(iii) the meta-variables in H occur already in H.,
k ^ 1
(iv) the meta-variables Z^ in H occur only at end-nodes of x(H^) in the
k -*■
form Z^(x), where x = x^,...,x^ is a string of pairwise distinct
variables.

(2) If, moreover, no metavariable occurs twice in H^, the reduction rule
-*■ H2 is called left-linear.

(3) The reduction rule -> defines a reduction relation, which also will
be denoted as on Ter, as follows:

<c[p (h ) ] — ► <r[p(H2) ]

for every context £[ ] (defined analogously as for X3 in 1.1.5) and every

valuation p.
r
If r = H^, then we will also w r i t e > for the reduction rela­
tion defined by r. A term of the form p(H^) for some valuation p is called
an r-redex.
As usual, — » denotes tb transitive reflexive closure of — ►.

1.12. EXAMPLES. (i)

[x]
X.
,0
'0
zX>
zj(x)

is the rule of 3-reduction. Henceforth we will omit the superscripts of

meta-variables, indicating their arity, and write Z, Z^, Z2 , Z 1, Z",... .
Sometimes we will write instead of a meta-term its formation tree, as
above, since it often makes the structure of the meta-term more apparent,
(ii) The definition of the recursor R yields an example of two left-linear
reduction rules where no substitution is involved (so with only 0-ary
meta-variables):

R ZjZ2 o —► zt
R z lZ 2(sz3 ) —
 127

(iii) The reduction rules for 'Surjective Pairing', which we will consider
in Chapter III, yield an example of a non left-linear reduction rule (the
third one):

V fe o V “
V teo V -
V(VQz)(Vf)

(iv) A pathological example:

0 z1 (z2 (z1 (I)))

[x] [y]
I I
Z^x) Z2 (y)

Let us give an example of an actual reduction step induced by this reduc­

tion rule. Let pZ^ = A(x) where A = xxK and pZ2 = B(y) where B = y S , then
p(Zj'Cx)) = xxK and p(Z2 (y)) = yS, and we have as an instance of the reduc­
tion rule the following reduction step:

0 ([x] (x x K )) ([y] (yS)) — ►

[x:= [y: = [x:=I] (xxK) ] (yS) ] (xxK) =
[x:= [y:= U K ] (yS) ] (xxK) =
[x:= U K S ](xxK) =
U K S (U K S )K .

(v) The next example is from Proof Theory; see PRAWITZ [71], p.252. In a
normalization procedure for derivations (in 'Natural Deduction') we have
here the 'v-reductions' (i = 1/2) :

zo ^ 2] zo

♦i zl Z
2 c*.]
l
0

p
4|1 V <I>0
1 A .
T T zi

$ *

Here 0./ P are 'rule-constants' for the v-introduction and v-elimination

128

rule. Omitting the formulae <p.,ip which function as 'types' of the deriva­
tions Z ,Z ,Z , these reductions can be written linearly as follows:
'O' r 2

P(O.Z0) ([x]Z1 (x)) (Cy]Z2 (y)) -- ► Zt (ZQ) .

(Likewise one can consider the &-, =>-, V-, 3- reductions in PRAWITZ [71]
p.252,253; these 5 proper reductions together constitute a regular CRS.
The vE-reductions induce an ambiguity however. See Def.1.14 and 1.16. for
the concepts 'ambiguous' and 'regular'.)

(vi): (X[x].Z (x))Z -- ►

1 2 P(V Z2 ) ) Z 2
'3-reduction with memory'; see Section 4.

1.13. ----------
DEFINITION. If H, H' are meta-terms,' we write H e-a H' to indicate
that the subterm H 1 "occurs at place a" in H. Here the sequence numbers
a = <n^,...,n^> (k>0) are possibly empty sequences of natural numbers, de­
signating the nodes in a tree x(H) as in the figure:

< >

< 0,1

T (H)

<0,1,0,0> <0,1,2,0>

‘•••<b,i,i,o,o>

So H e H' .
““<0,1 >
 129

REMARK. A shortcoming of the formation trees x ( H 1) is that the nodes o in

x(H') are not in bijective correspondence with the subterm occurrences in
H', as is apparent from the figure above. (If one uses Aczel's notation as
explained in Remark 1.5 above, and the corresponding formation trees, then
this shortcoming is removed.) However, for our purposes the trees x(H')
suffice.

We illustrate the next definition by some examples.

(i) Consider a CRS E with the set of reduction rules

Red(E ) = : P(Qz) ---->- A, r2 : OZ ----► B}.

Then the fact that the r^-redex = P(Q(pZ)) contains as subterm a r^-
redex R = 0(pZ) is undesirable if one wants to have the CR-property.
(For R^ >■ A and also R^ >■ PB and there is no common reduct of A, PS)
(ii) A more subtle case of this kind of "interference" between reduction
rules is given by

Red(E) = {P -- ► A 8}

0 .9

R z
2

Here, too, there is 'interference'; namely if R = P

for some terms X,Y, then R -- ► A and also
R -- ► PB. R s

X Y
(iii) A reduction rule may also interfere with itself (example of HUET
[78]) :
if Red(Z) = (P(PZ) -- >■ A} and R = P(P(Px)) , then R -- s- A and R -- >- PA.

This leads us to:

1.14. DEFINITION.
(1) Let H^, H2 e Mter. Then g. H^ ("H^ interferes with H2") <=»

(1) if E H2 : for some p and non-terminal a / < > in H^»

pH
c pH .
l a 2
(ii) if H, f H_: for some p and non-terminal a in , pH, c pH .
1 2 2 1 ~'a 2
An equivalent definition is:
H 1 ^ H2 whenever pH^ £ pH2 , then PH ^ £ Pz for some metavariable Z in

V
(2) If r^ = H^ -- ► HJ and r2 = H^ -- ► H2 are two reduction rules (possibly
the same) of a CRS, we say that r^ i n t e r f e r e s w ith r iff H ^ H2 *

(3) Let Red(E) = {r. = H. ► HJ I i e i} be the set of reduction rules of

i i i 1
a CRS E.
Then Red(E) (or just E) is n o n -a m h ig u o u s iff

(i) H_^ t H for i ^ j,

(ii) for no i,j e I, r^ interferes with r^ .

1.15. EXAMPLES.
(1) Red(E) = {Iz -- »■ Z} is non-ambiguous, but Red(E') = (I(lz) -- »■ Iz} is.
(2) Red(E) = {(Xx.Z1 (x))Z -- * Z1 (Z2) (3-reduction),
(Xx.xx) (Xx.xx) -- *■ Xx.x}
is ambiguous.
(3) The following example is from ACZEL [78]. Let E have the rules:
3-r e d a c t io n

p a ir in g : VQ ( P z ^ ) z
1
z
2

d e f i n i t i o n by c a s e s :
R Q.Z. ...Z -- v z,
n 1 1 n ,1

R 0 Z, ...Z -- ► Z
n^n I n n

it e r a t o r :
 131

Then E is a non-ambiguous CRS.

(Note that the rules for R2 above are similar to the rules:

if true then Z^ else -- > Z

if fal se then Z^ else Z^ -- »■ Z^ .)

(4) Church's 6-rule. See CHURCH [41] p.62.

Let E be A$-calculus plus the rules

6AB -- y I if A e B and A,B are closed normal forms

6AB -- y KI if A % B and A,B are closed normal forms.

In fact one should write, as pointed out in HINDLEY [78]:

Red(E) = (3) U {6AB y i |a ,B closed nf's, A = b } u

{6AB y i |a ,B closed nf's, A f B}

to see that E is a CRS. Note that the infinitely many 6-reduction rules have
no metavariables. Clearly, E is non-ambiguous.

(5) Red(E) = {Z1 + Z2 -- ► Z^ + Z1

Z 1 + SZ2 ~ ^ S(Zl+Z2)
(Z1+Z2) + Z3 -- ” Z1 + (Z2+Z3)}
is ambiguous, in several ways. (Here Z^ + Z^ stands for + Z^Z^.)

(6) The following very familiar CRS E has constants 0 (zero), S (successor),
A (addition), M (multiplication), and E (exponentiation).

Red (E) = {Azo — y z, Azj (Sz2) — ► 5 (A z 1z2) f

Mzo — ► 0 , M z 1 (s z 2) — ► A(Mz z )z ,
E z o — ySo, Ez 1 (Sz 2) — v M(E z 1z 2)z 1>.

The rules are non-ambiguous and left-linear.

1.16. DEFINITION. Let Red(E) be non-ambiguous and let the reduction rules
in Red(E) be left-linear (Def.1.11.(2)). Then E is called a regular CRS.

1.17. REMARK. The definition of CRS's is, loosely speaking, the union of
the definitions of

(i) the contraction schemes in ACZEL [78],

(ii) the Term Rewriting Systems as in e.g. HUET [78],
(iii) the X(a)-reductions of HINDLEY [78].
(See Figure 1.18.)
132

Ad(i). Aczel's contraction schemes are less general then CRS's, since
there in a scheme H -- ► H ', the formation tree r(H) has typically the form

I.e. all the 'arguments' of F can only have the form (I),...,(V). Here (I)
(II) are special cases of the form (V) and (III) is a special case of (IV)
So the meta-terms H in the LHS' of contraction schemes in ACZEL [78] have
a limited depth (viz. 4). In our definition r(H) can be arbitrarily deep,
hence the concept of a CRS also covers that of a TRS.
ad(iii). Hindley's X(a)-reductions generalize the class of regular (i.e.
non-ambiguous, left-linear) TRS's. In a reduction rule H -*■ H ', Hindley
admits only O-ary metavariables (apart from the rule 3)•
Among Hindley's X(a)-reductions are the so-called 6-rules of Church.
These are of the form

A,___ A -- ► B
1 n

where the A^ (i = l,...,n) and B are closed terms and the A_^ are moreover
in 35-normal form. So they are reduction 'rules' without metavariables;
each rule has only one instance, namely itself. Moreover the set of these
rules has to be non-ambiguous. An example was given in 1.15(4).
 133

A subclass of Hindley's A(a)-reductions and Aczel's contraction

schemes was considered in STENLUND [72], There the CR theorem is proved
for A$r)6R-calculus; r\ refers to n-reduction which we do not consider ex­
cept in Chapter IV, 6 refers to Church's 6-reductions and R-reductions are
a generalization of the usual recursor as in Example 1.12(ii). An inspec­
tion of Stenlund's definition shows that (when r\ is left aside) his A|36R
is a regular CRS.
A note on terminology: instead of 'non-ambiguous' ACZEL [78] calls
such a E consistent, HUET [78] says that such a E (for TRS's) has no criti­
cal pairs, and ROSEN [73] speaks of the non-overlapping condition. In
HINDLEY [78] the non-ambiguity of E is about the same as his (D2) & (D5) &
(D6); (D3) is the left-linearity.

Venn diagram of the extensions of various notions of reduction.

Here 'RPS' is the class of Recursive Program Schemes, as in 1.1.13; 'A©S.P.'

refers to the example in 1.12(iii); 'Proof Th. reduction' refers to the
reduction rule in Example 1.12.(v), 'R' stands for the recursor (Example
134

1.12.(ii), and CL©Pzz -* E refers to a non-left-linear extension of CL which

will be considered in Chapter III.

In order to facilitate notation, let us define the following operation

on CRS's.

1.19. DEFINITION, (i) Let E^, be CRS's having disjoint sets of constants
Then the direct sum E^ © E^ is the CRS having as alphabet the union of the
alphabets of E^, E2 and such that RedtE^eE^ = Red(E^) U Red(E2).
(ii) If E^, E2 are CRS's not satisfying the disjointness requirement in (i)
we take 'isomorphic copies' EJ and E2 (e.g. by replacing each constant 0
of Z by (i = 1,2)) and put Zj © Z2 := ZJ © Z^

1.19.1. EXAMPLE. (i) A © CL as in Def.I.2.5.1.

(ii) CL © CL has constants 1,1', K, K' ,^,S' and rules Iz -- »■ Z, I'Z -- ► Z and
likewise for K,S.

1.19.2. REMARK. Although we will not explore the properties of © systemat­

ically, we will state some observations on ©:
(i) the class of CRS's is closed under ©; likewise the class of regular
CRS's .
(ii) if E^, E2 are CRS's, then

Z1 © E2 |= CR => Z1 |= CR & E2 |= CR

but the converse does not hold, as we will see in Ch.III. If moreover E^,
E2 are regular CRS's, the converse holds trivially, by (i) and because
every regular CRS is CR (Thm.3.11).
(iii) According to Def.I .5.10.(1), a CRS E is consistent iff not every two
E-terms (including open E-terms, i.e. containing variables) are convertible
by means of the reduction rules. In particular, iff E x = y for dif­
ferent variables x,y. Now we have

E © E consistent => E ,E .
1 2 1 Z

Here => is obvious, and to see let E^ be CL and E2 be the CRS having
constants P,0 and as only rules Pz — >- Z and Pz — >■ ZZ. Then in E^ © Z^z
 135

PKlxy y KJxy > Iy yy

-- y KKIxy -- y Kxy -- y x.

When E^rE^ are moreover regular, then the converse implication does hold,
as a consequence of (ii) .
(iv) As for the property Strong Normalization, we remark that obviously

^ 1 © E2 1= SN => E^ f= SN & E2 |= SN; but again not conversely.

A counterexample is given by the regular TRS's E^ having K as only con-

stant and as only rule K Z Z ' — y Z, and having constants P,Q. and as only
rule P(Qz) -- ► zPP(Qz).
Then trivially E^ |= SN, and also E^ (= SN, since in E^ no new redexes can
be created (therefore E^ = E^/ an<^ ^Y Theorem 4.15 below: E^ (= SN) .
On the other hand, E^ © E2 SN, because P(QK) y KPP(QK) y P(QK.
(Question: does the converse implication hold if are UPS's?)

1.20. REMARK. In the study of CRS's we consider, next to the Term Rewriting
part, reductions involving general mechanisms of variable-binding. One can
ask whether this is necessary: it might be thought that the way of variable­
binding and substitution as in A-calculus ('the theory of functional ab­
straction') is sufficient, especially in view of a remark in CURRY-FEYS
[56] p.85,86 in which it is stated that "any binding operation can in prin­
ciple be defined in terms of functional abstraction and an ordinary opera­
tion" , and that "the theory of functional abstraction is tantamount to the
theory of bound variables."
A similar remark is made in CHURCH [56] §06, p.41: here A is called
the 'singulary functional abstraction operator', and it is stated that
"all other operators can in fact be reduced to this one".
Indeed it is not hard to see that for the notation of terms, the
operator A suffices. In CURRY, FEYS [56] examples like '(3x)X = E(Ax.X)'
are given to that effect.
As to reduction of terms, however, and the corresponding syntactical
questions such as the Church-Rosser Theorem, the Parallel Moves Lemma, it
seems to us that one cannot claim that the theory of bound variables is
tantamount to that of A-abstraction. Let us try to make this more precise:

DEFINITION. Let E be a CRS such that Red(E) contains the rule

3= (Ax.Z(x))Z' -- y Z(Z') as only substituting rule, next to Term Rewriting
136

rules. Then we will call E a A-TRS.

EXAMPLE. A © CL is a A-TRS; in general, if E is .a TRS, then A ® E is a

A-TRS. The converse does not hold, e.g. if E is such that Red(E) =
= (3/Pz i Z2 -- ► Az .Z2 (Z^z )} (Z^,Z2 O-ary metaviarables) then E cannot be
written as A © some TRS.

REMARK. Hindley's A (a)-reduction systems are in fact regular A-TRS's.

Now we can interpret the statement from CURRY-FEYS [56], cited above,
as claiming that 'the theory of CRS's is tantamount to the theory of
A-TRS's'.
Indeed, it is not hard to show that for every CRS E there is a
it
A-TRS E , having the same terms (modulo inessential notational differences)
and such that for all terms A,B:

(i) E |= A -- »- B => E* |= A — » B, and hence also

(ii) E f= A — » B => E* f= A — » B.

As a typical example, let E have the rule

r = P([x]Z' (x)) ([y]ZM (y)) -- ► Az.Z"(Z'(z)))

*
(Z', Z" unary metavariables) then E will have instead of r the rule
r* = Pz1z2 -- h Az.Z2 (Z^z) (Z^,Z2 O-ary metavariables).
And now for terms <C [x], we have in E:

P([x]<C Ex]) ([y]C2Cy]) Az. (E^Cfl^Cz]]

in one step, while in E :

PCAx.a^Cx]) (Ay.C2 [y]) — ^

Az. (Ay.(C2Ey]) ((Ax.C1[x]) z)

Az .(E2 [ C ^ [ z ] ] .

However, in general the converse implication does not hold in (ii) above:
E has too many reduction possibilities. So to prove e.g. the CR theorem
•k
for E it does not help, a priori, to have CR for E .
 137

In fact, it seems to us that the theory of CRS's is a refinement of

that for A-TRS's; essentially the refinement amounts to the fact that many
step reductions such as in the example for E above can be dealt with as a
single step (in E).
Furthermore, let us mention that reductions like r in E above, do in­
deed in a natural way occur: namely in Proof Theory (see Example 1.12(v));
we will return to that later.
Finally: our wish to consider more general variable-binding mechanisms
arose also in order to have maximum flexibility in defining 'odd' reduc­
tions, like e.g. 3^- -j (as in Example 1.12 (vi) , (vii)) .

2. DESCENDANTS AND LABELS FOR COMBINATORY REDUCTIONS

The following definitions are analogous to Def.I.3.1 and 1.3.2. for

A3-calculus. To each CRS E we assign a labeled* CRS E^.

2.1. DEFINITION. Let E be a CRS and A= {0,a,b,...} be a set of labels, in­

cluding the empty label 0. Then M = Mter(E^), the set of meta-terms of E^,
is defined inductively as follows:

(i) a e A, x e Var, Q. a constant of E =* (ax) , (aQ) e M

(ii) a e A, x e Var, A e M => (a([x]A)) e M
(iii) a e A, A,B e M =* (a (AB)) e M
(iv) Z^ e Mvar, A ^ ,...,A^ e M => (A^,...,A^) e M (all i,k>0).

2.2. NOTATION.
a
(1) Instead of (aA) we will write A ? we used the notation (aA) to show
that the labeling can be seen as 'internal1, i.e. that a labeled combinatory
reduction is just another combinatory reduction where the labels are new
constants.
(2) Instead of A
0 we will write A. Hence Mter(E) c Mter(E.).
k ™
(3) Note that meta-terms Z^ (A^,...,A^) (i,k>0) do not carry labels? there
is no need for that, since the metavariables Z will be metavariables for
labeled terms in E^.
(4) Analogous to Def.I.3.1, we will write E^-meta-terms also in the form
A where A e Mter(E) and I is a labeling of the subterms of A.

2.3. DEFINITION, (i) To each reduction rule r e Red(E) we associate a set

r^ of reduction rules:
138

if r = H — y H', then (H1— y H') e for every labeling I.

(ii) Red(E^) = U {r^ | r e Red(E)}.

2.4. EXAMPLE. (1) If r = SZ Z Z -- y Z Z (Z Z ) , then r. consists of all

*" L Z. 3 1 j j A
reduction rules

(((SV bz2>Cz3) d - * V 3 ( 22Z3>

for all a,b,c,d e A.

(2) If r = B-reduction rule, then r^ consists of all rules

((Aa ([x]Z1 (x))a ')bZ2)C -- ► Z1 (Z2)

for all a,a1,b,c e A.

(Cf. the definition of B^-reduction in 1.3.2. To get the latter, take
a,a* = 0; so r^ contains all rules

((Xx.z1 (x))bz2)c — >- ZJ (Z2),

i .e . 3^-reduction.)

2.5. DEFINITION. Let A1 e Mter(E^). We call I an initial labeling of A if

I labels all the sub-meta-terms of A by a different label ^ 0.

It is now a simple matter to define the concept of descendants for

regular CRS's. (In fact the definition applies to left-linear CRS's.) First
we need a proposition.

2.6. PROPOSITION, (i) Let l be a CRS. Then is a CRS. Moreover:

Red(2) is non-ambiguous => Red(E^) is non-ambiguous.

Red(E) is left-linear => Red(E^) is left-linear.

(Hence, if E is a regular CRS, then Z. is one.)

(ii) Let Z be a left-linear CRS. If M ► M* is a reduction step in Z, then
^ I rJ i' j
there is a unique labeled rule r* e r^ such that M —— — > M' where R is
the contracted r'-redex corresponding to the r-redex R in M.
 139

PROOF.(i) The main point to check is that Red(E^) is again non-ambiguous.

Suppose not, and consider an ambiguity. Then it is not hard to see that
erasing the labels yields an ambiguity in Red(E).
(ii) Routine. □

2.6.1. REMARK. The restriction in Proposition 2.6(ii) to left-linear CRS's

is necessary. For, let E have as only rule r = VZZ ► Z; so E^ has the
set of rules r* = { (Vaz)^Z -- ► z|a,b e A}. Now consider M E Vxx > x E M'
and take M E (VaxP ) xq for p ^ q; then none of the r^-rules applies to M

2.7. DEFINITION. Let E be a left-linear CRS. Consider a step M -- >■ M' in E

I r I'
and a subterm N c M. "Lift" this reduction step to the step M M' in
E^, where I is some initial labeling and r' is the suitable rule e r^
(unique by Proposition 2.6).
Then the descendant(s) N' c M' of N are those subterms of M' bearing
the same label as N.

2.8. REMARK. (1) Note that since the right hand side of r* = (H*-*H') e r^
is unlabeled, an r-redex p(H) has no descendants after its contraction.
(2) Descendants of a redex will also be called residuals.
(3) Note that, contrary to the case of A3, in general in a step M — >- M'
not every subterm N* £ M* has an ancestor N c M (i.e. a subterm N of which
N' is a descendant). We remarked this already for CL in Example I.3.4.7.
However, if N* has an ancestor N c M, it is unique, since I was an initial
labeling in Def.2.7.

2.9. To every regular CRS E we will associate an underlined version, E_.

(Cf. 1.3.5 and 1.3.6 where A_ is defined.)

2.10. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS, having Q as set of constants.

Let be the set (Q/0 e Q}. Now define E_ to be the CRS such that

(i) the set of constants of E_ is Q u Q_,

(ii) r = (0m — ► H*) e Red (E) , then r_ = (£)M — ► H*) .

(Note: Q.'s occurring in M, H' are not underlined in r_.)

2.11. REMARK. (1) E_ c E ^ or more precisely, E_ can be 'isomorphically

embedded' (in the usual sense) into E^Q ^ y
(Cf. the definition of _A from A^q in 1.3.5.)
140

Hence by Proposition 2.6, E_ is again a regular CRS. (Obviously,

E' c E & E is regular ==> E' is regular.) One can also check directly that:
E regular => E_ regular; we will omit the routine verification.
(2) The main feature of E_ is that in E-reductions M — > ...— »• N there is no
creation of E_ -redexes; cf. the analogous case of AB_. I.e. in a E_ -step
A y B every E_ -redex in B is a residual of a E_ -redex in A. Again the
verification of this fact is routine.

2.12. DEFINITION, (i) Let E be a regular CRS and _E the underlined version.
If <R' is a E^ -reduction and (R is the E-reduction obtained by erasing the
underlining (i.e. replacing Q, by 0) , then we will call <R a (E-) develop­
ment. Par abus de langage, we will call sometimes also <R' a development,
(ii) If, moreover, <R' terminates in a _E-normal form, <R will be called a
complete (E-) development. (Note that <R does not necessarily end in a E-
normal form; cf. the case for A3.)

2.13. REMARK, (i) The 'disjointness property' (Def.I .4.3.1), stating that
the descendants of a subterm are disjoint, and which was seen to hold for
one-step reductions in AB-calculus and even for 3-developments (I.4.3.7),
fails here at once: consider e.g. a rule

0[x]Z(x) -- ► Z(Z(I) ) .

(ii) O'DONNELL [77] states on p.89 (def.22') some axioms for 'pseudoresi­
duals ' and on p. 23 (Def. 22) for residuals. These axioms require some
well-behaviour of his pseudoresiduals. The residuals which we have intro­
duced above for CRS's do not fall under the scope of O'Donnell's defini­
tion, since our residuals can be very much entwined even after one step,
(which is forbidden in O'Donnell's definition), e.g.:

Q.([x]z1 (x) ) ([y]Z2 (y) ) -- ► Z1 (Z2 (Z (Z2 (I) ))).

(iii) It is simple to see that Levy's AL-calculus (see 1.3.9), typed

HW
A-calculus (1.3.8) and A -calculus (1.3.7) are regular CRS's. (I.e. the
L-labeling and the HW-labeling can be viewed as 'internal'.) E.g. AL :
 141

(a(AxZ1 (x)))Z2 -- y - aZ^(-aZ2)

HI (notation) ||| (notation)

(XxZ^x))0^ -► zf-(zf)

for all a e L as defined in 1.3.9. So the a e L and are constants of

the CRS XL .

3. THE CHURCH-ROSSER THEOREM FOR REGULAR COMBINATORY REDUCTIONS

One of our aims in the next sections of this chapter is to prove for
regular CRS's £ that

(1) E f= FD, i.e. _£ |= SN (Finite Developments)

(2) £ |= CR+ , i.e. the strong version of the Church-Rosser theorem,
analogous to Theorem 1.6.9 for definable extensions of X3.

For X (a)-reductions, a proof of (1), (2) is given by HINDLEY [78],

for TRS's by LEVY-HUET [79]. ACZEL [78] proves CR (not CR+) for his con­
traction schemes by a method analogous to that in the well-known proof of
X3 f= CR of Tait and Martin-Lof, see e.g. BARENDREGT [80] or [77].
In the proof of (1), (2) for all regular CRS's we have the problem
that the two methods used in Chapter I to prove X3 |= FD are not of much
help here: Micali's proof (Lemma I.4.3.3) based on the disjointness proper­
ty of X3-developments does not work here since DP does not hold for all
regular CRS's, see Remark 2.13. (i); the proof using 'decreasing weights'
as in 1.4.1 might be extended to the present case, but such an extension
seems very complicated.
Therefore we will split the problem to prove FD, and hence CR+ , into
two parts: reduction in a CRS can be analyzed into
(a) a 'Term Rewriting part' where subterms are manipulated (multiplied,
erased, permuted) as in a TRS, and
(b) a 'substitution part', as in X3-calculus.
To do that, we introduce for each CRS £ a CRS £ (where the substi­
tution part is suspended or 'frozen') and a CRS £ , as follows.

3.1. DEFINITION. To each regular CRS £ we assign a CRS £ as follows.

(i) The alphabet of £ = alphabet of E u {X,-}.

(ii) The map fQ : Mter(£) -- ► Mter(Ef) is defined by
142

fQ (x) = x, fQ (0 ) = 0

fQ ([x]A) = Cx]fQ (A)

f o (AB) = f o (A)fo (B)

f0 (Z(Hl.... Hk n = (Xxr - - x k .Z(x1.... xk))f0 (H1)...f0 (Hk).

(iii) f ^ : Red(E) -- »■ Red(E^) is the map assigning to r = H — >■ H' the rule
fx (r) = H f0 (H1) .
(iv) Red(Ef) = (r) | r e Red(E)}.

3.2. DEFINITION. has the same alphabet and rules as E^. plus as extra
---------- fp ~ f
rules 3, -reduction for all k > 1 :

4 = (^ 1 ...xk .zQ (x1 .... V ) V 2- zk — V V - - - ' V

B (m for 'many') will denote the union of the 3 n -reductions (k>l) , as in

-m -k
Def.1.4.2.2.

3.3. ------
REMARK, (i) E^
f and f^ are evidently again regular CRS's, since the
LHS's of the rules are unaltered.
(ii) Obviously, if in E: A -- ► B, then in E^n: A —— 7—> — -— » B. So in E__
1 r fB f j (r) B fB
the E-reductions are separated into a 'term rewriting par?' f^(r) and a
'substitution part' B .
—m
(iii) Note that E^ is in fact a TRS, by considering the variables x,y,..,
which do not play that role in E^ anymore, as new constants. (This remark
is meant heuristically and we will not prove it.)

3.4. EXAMPLE. (i) 'Frozen' A 3 -calculus, (A3)f r has as only rule (writing
Ax for A[x] in the LHS):

f± (B) = (Ax.Zx (x))Z -- ► (A2L-2! (x) )z2

(ii) If E is a TRS, then Ef = E.

3.5. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS. Then E (= WCR+ iff

 143

i.e. for all E-terms A^,A^,A^ such that A^ -- * A^ by contraction of an r^-

redex R_^ (i = 1,2), there is a common reduct A^, to be found by a complete
r .-development of the set S, of residuals in A. of R. (i = 1,2).
i l l i

(Remark: We do not yet know that all developments of the sets S^ (i = 1,2)
are finite, nor that all complete developments end in the same term. At
this stage, we do not know even that there is a complete development of S^.
Later on, in Lemma 3.9 and Theorem 4.15, all this will be proved to hold
indeed.)

Checking that E |= WCR+ (for E regular) is no longer as trivial as for

A|3-calculus, due to the possibly complicated substituting behaviour of
CRS's. Therefore first:

3.6. LEMMA. Let E be a regular CRS. Then E^_„ |= WCR+ .

------ fp

PROOF. This requires a consideration of the following cases:

(ii) (iii) A

and checking that indeed the common reduct D can be found by reduction of
residuals of the redexes in question, as required by the property WCR+ .
h WCRt and that every TRS i|=WCRt
(in fact for that reason E was introduced), and we omit the actual veri-
£p
fication. □

With the aid of the concept E we will now first prove a weak form
£p
of FD for regular CRS's E (namely that E_ |= WN) and get CR as a corollary.
144

After introducing some more theory (the elaboration of a method originally

due to NEDERPELT [73]) this is used to get the full FD and CR+ theorem.
In the next few pages we will prove to that end some technical (but
intuitively clear) propositions; the main activity thereby is 'label
tracing'. We will allow ourselves a bit of informality in the description
of this activity (in the same spirit as when one speaks of 'diagram chasing*
in e.g. category theory), since a more formal treatment would probably not
be more perspicuous.
The next Proposition prepares the way for the main Proposition 3.8.

3.7. PROPOSITION. £^n |= FD. X.e. every £^n-development terminates.

fp fp

PROOF. Let M e Ter (£,.„) and let an underlining of the headsymbol of some
----- fp
set IR of redexes in M be given. Furthermore, let be a reduction of M in
which only underlined redexes are contracted. We have to prove that (R is
finite.
The proof is a straightforward extension of the proof of Theorems
1.4.1.11 and I.4.2.5, using the method of 'decreasing weights', and will
therefore be omitted. □

3.7.1. EXAMPLE. Let £ have as only rule

(0X .Z1 (x)) (Qy.Z2 (y)) -- ► Z2 (Z1 (Qy.Z2 (y))).

Then £ has the two rules

Ip

(Ox.Z1 (x) ) (Qy.Z2 (y) ) — * (Aa.Z2 (a))[ (Ax.Z1 (x)) (Qy. (Ay^_.Z2 (y ’))y) ]

JLi = (Ax.Z1 (x) )Z2 -- ► Z1 (Z2).

Now in £ every reduction starting with (Ox.xx)(Qy«yyy) is infinite; in

£_ we have the terminating reduction:
fp

(£x.xx) (Qy.yyy) -- ► (Aa.aaa)[ (Ax.xx)(Oy.(Ay'.y'y'y')y)]

-- » MM (MM) (MM) (where M = Qy.yyy) ,

a £ -normal form,
fp
 145

The 'main proposition' says nothing more than that a 'separated* com­
plete development of a set of redexes in a E-term M, where 'separated'
means that takes place via E , can be replaced by a complete development
ip
<R' in E of the same set of redexes.

3.8. PROPOSITION.
M' e Ter(Ef)

Let M be a E-term, and P ,— ,P be a set of resp. r r -redexes

i n I n
in M with r„,...,r e Red(E) . Since Ter(E) c Ter(E_), M is also a E -term;
I n “ f f
and P„____,P are resp. f, (r ), — ,f, (r )-redexes in E_.
I n l l l n r
Now let M' e Ter(E ) be the result of a complete development (c.dev.)
■ y ->■
of the f (r)-redexes P, and let M" be the complete 3 -development (in E )
1 —m fp
of all the Ax-redexes which have originated by the c.dev. M — » M* . So
M" e Ter(E) .
Then there is a c.dev. in E from M to M" of the r-redexes P. (See
figure above.)

PROOF. The proof is in five parts.

(1) In case n = 1 (in P = tlie proposition follows immediately
from the definitions of E^_ and E „ . In the case that the P.-redexes are
f f3 i
disjoint, the proposition follows also immediately by the previous state­
ment.
(2) Reminder: 3 -developments have the disjointness property. (Corollary
—m
1.4.3.10) i.e. if M 3 -develops to M * , then the residuals in M' of a sub-
—m
term N c M are pairwise disjoint.
146

(3)
)
6 Ter(EfS

-dev.

e Ter(E )
rp

CLAIM. Let M e Ter(E^„) and M' be the result of an f„(r)-contraction, M"

rp 1
of a ^-development (not necessarily complete) . Then a common reduct M H'
is found by a 3 -development of M' and a development of the (by (2) dis-
—m
joint) f^(r)-redexes which are the residuals of the contracted f^(r)-redex
in M. (See figure above.)

PROOF OF THE CLAIM. In Lemma 3.6, we proved that T._cn \= WCR+ . So, we can
------------------ r p
try a successive addition of the elementary diagrams (e.d.'s) shown in the
proof of Lemma 3.6, like in the proof of CR+ in 1.6.1, to find a common
reduct. That the thus obtained reduction diagram V 'closes' indeed, follows
from the fact that £ 1= FD (Proposition 3.7) considering that all the
ip
reductions in V are f,(r)- and 3 -developments.
1 —m
Finally, by the construction of V and properties of the e.d.'s it is
obvious that the f^ (r)-development M" — » M"' thus obtained is a development
of residuals of the original f^(r)-redex in M.

(4) M e Ter(21 D) M* eTer(E_0)

fp r p

CLAIM. Given M,M*,M" as in the figure, there is a common reduct M m e Ter(E)

which is the complete 3 -development of M' and which is obtained from
 147

M" e Ter(E) by a complete development of the r-redexes which are the resi­
duals of the original f^(r)-redex in M.

PROOF OF THE CLAIM. By (3), (1) and the following figure:

M M'

(5) Finally we can prove the proposition. Let M e Ter(E), M' e Ter(E )
ip
and M" € Ter(E) be given as in the statement to prove:

Then repeated application of (4) yields the proposition, using (ad(*) in

the figure above) that the complete 3 -development of M e Ter(E) is the
empty reduction (since M does not contain Ax) and (ad(**) in the figure
148

above) that the result of a complete 3 -development is unique. □

—m

3.9. COROLLARY. E_ |= WN.

J.e. for every Z, the corresponding underlined Z_ satisfies Weak Normaliza­
tion. Or in other words: for every Z-term M there is a terminating complete
development of a given set of redexes in M.

PROOF. Let M e Ter(E) and let 1 be a set of redexes in M specified by

underlining their head symbol. (So (M,IR) e Ter(E).) Now working in Z , take
— fp
a complete development M M' e Ter(Z^), and next the complete 3 -devel-
f3 ~m
opment of M ' :

M € Ter(E) ------- »> M' € Ter(E ) — r— M" e Ter(E).

f 3 c .3 -dev.
—m

Then apply the proposition above to get a complete development M — » M" now
taking place in E. □

3.10. LEMMA. Let Z be a regular CRS. Then Z |= WCR+ .

PROOF. (1) Let reductions -- ► A^ (i = 1,2) as in Definition 3.5 of WCR+

be given.
(2) Perform the same steps but now 'separated', i.e. via E .
f3
(3) Complete the reduction diagrams ^ o f^l'^2/^3 as t^ie ^ ^ ure ^el°w -
That these completions are indeed possible, is easily checked by some
•-routine arguments. (See figure on p.149.)
Here IR^ is the set of f ^ (r^) -residuals of the f^(r^)-redex R^ in A^; IRJJ
the set of f (r^)-residuals of the redexes in 3R^ / etc.
By a label-tracing argument (color the original redexes R ,R red
resp. blue and correspondingly the Ax's originating from them; so we have
red and blue 3 -developments; since A, contains no red and A_ no blue,
—m 1 l
A^ is colorless) it is obvious that A^ e Ter(E).
 149

Finally, using Proposition 3.8 yields complete developments as re­

quired :

where it is routine to check that IR'^ , as defined above, equals IR^ , the
set of residuals of after contraction of , and likewise with 1,2 in­
terchanged . □
150

3.11. THEOREM. E |= CR, for every regular CRS E.

PROOF. Let E-reductions = M^ M M and <R_

1 n Z
M, M! Ml M^ be given. Using the same argument as in the
0 1 2
proof of the preceding Lemma, we can now 'fill in' block-by-block of the
following two-layered reduction diagram, V^ behind and V^ in front:
f3

V
E
f3

Note that after having 'lifted' the edge M( M

0 1
of V^ to the edge

01
M( M4
1 12
M„
Mi
f the auxiliary di
of diagram V , the construction of V follows by
M' a projection (using Proposition 3.8) of the construction of V
M01
as in the proof of the preceding Lemma.

3.12. REMARK. The status of several analogues to the case of AB-calculus

in Ch.I is not yet clear, namely:
(1) FD; if M € Ter(E), then all developments of the underlined term
(M,3R) e Ter(E) terminate.
 151

(2) The Parallel Moves Lemma (cf.I.6.12).

(3) CR+ ; the 'stepwise' diagram construction by adjunction of e.d.'s
terminates.
In fact it is sufficient to prove FD; for then PM and CR+ are corol­
laries. That FD holds for E, i.e. Z_ |= SN, will be a corollary of a general
method to reduce SN-proofs to WN-proofs. This will be the next subject.

4. REDUCTIONS WITH MEMORY

The difference between A-calculus and Al-calculus is that in the

former subterms can be erased. This is the reason that some pleasant prop­
erties of the Al-calculus fail for A-calculus; see 1.7. We will now asso­
ciate to each regular CRS E a regular CRS E^- j in which there is no era­
sure. This will lead to a method to reduce SN-proofs to WN-proofs, de­
scribed in the next section; corollaries are the theorems FD, CR+ , PM for
regular CRS's E .

4.1. DEFINITION. Let Q = {(^ | i e i} be the set of constants of E. Then

the set of constants of Ef = Q u (P* | i e i} u {P}.

4.2. NOTATION, (i) Instead of PAB we write [A,B]. The subterm B is called
the memory part of [A,B].
(ii) [A,B ,...,B ] := [[A,B ,...,B ] ,B
1 n+1 I n n+1
(iii) If t = B ,...,B we will sometimes write A^- for [A,B], when it is
I n B
typographically more convenient; we will even employ both notations simul­
taneously in one term, as e.g. in [A,Bc ],
(iv) If H e Mter(E), then *H e Mter(Er -,) is the result of replacing H's
* L 'J
head symbol Q. by 0 .

4.3. INTUITION. To motivate the next definition, consider the

TRS: E = CL © Pairing, with constants J , K , S , V and rules:

Iz — >- Z, fCz1z2 — ► Z y 5z 1z 2z 3 — v z1z3(z2z3),

V pziz2> ~ * V V ^ i V — " z2-

Obviously there is erasure here: in the rules for K and

(i) We want to eliminate this erasure in E^- j by replacing the K-rule by
etc. I.e. the original redex is repeated as 'memory part', but 'frozen' by
. (But note that the redexes possibly occurring in the subterms substi-
tuted for the meta-variables Z^, e.g. in K Z^Z^ ab°v e ' are not affected by
*.) Obviously, the resulting rules are non-erasing. Even the non-erasing
rules will be transformed in this way, so the I-rule in E becomes in E^- :

Iz [Z,I*Z].

(This is done not only for the sake of an uniform description, but also to
make Er increasing; see Prop.4.9 below.)

(ii) Further, we want to be able to imitate each reduction (R in E by the

'same* reduction <R' in E^- -j (necessary in the proof of Lemma 4.10); that is,
if in <R' the memorized parts are erased, the result is <R. To be able to do
this, we introduce in Ej-,-j the 'shift rule'

CV Z2]Z2 ~ * CZi V Z2]

which gives the reductions AgC — » (AC)g-; this was also done in 1.8.5. Now
consider e.g. the following in E:

KVqC(VRB) ► Vq(Vkb ) ► A.

Then will give rise to the following imitation in Ej- -j (by way of il­
lustration we employ the [,] - as well as the subscript notation):

K V 0C ( V AB) ►
IV0.K*Voc W > * b ) = V 0 K*VoCW m )
lV0 (.Vm) ,K*V0cl = (V0 (Vr s ) )k*V q C ---- ►
C[A,P0(PftB)],K V 0cl = &p*(VAB)rK*V0c ’

Note how in the shift step the memorized subterm K*VqC, which is affixed
to the head symbol Vq of the redex Vq(Vab ) , is shifted 'out of* that redex.
 153

(iii) But this is not yet enough, because memorized parts affixed to
'deeper' subterms in a redex cannot be shifted out of the redex. For, in
order to imitate the following reduction in E: •

V0(IKVCAB) --- ►

V 0 (KVc a b ) --- ►

V0(Vab ) --- ►
A

by the reduction <R' in Er :

L ,J

V 0 (1KV c r b ) --- ►

P o t C ^ I ^ U c a B ) ----r ^ r -- »
u shift
Z>0([KPc a b ,I*K]) ---- ►

V 0(aV,K*Vclm,l*KJ) sh.£t »

Po(CCPftB»K*lfc],I*fC]) = V 0 ( V m ) K*pc j*K

Ia , V 0 (Vk b )K *p C r I * K l

we need the rule (for the last step in ft’) :

V nlVz.Zj Czr p0 {Vz i Z2)Z3,Z4]

1 2'Z3,Z4

(Note: one should not confuse V q (Vk B)-+ and (Vq (#AB))j .)
This motivates the next definition:

4.4. DEFINITION, (i) On Mter(E^- -|) we define the ’forgetful' reduction rule
(as in Def.I.8.6):

k = Czlfz2]
V

If A,B e Mter(Ej- and A -— » B, then A is a 'k-expansion1 of B.

So e.g. H
(^D,E (BpCG,H,I)J fK iS a k'e*Pansion WhiCh
is a k-expansion of the k-normal form A(BC). Moreover, we will say that in
H the subterm A is k-expanded, and likewise the subterms B, B C and
F
a d ,e (b f c )g ,h ,i -
154

(ii) Further, we define on Mter(Z^- the rule

shift = tz1,z2Jz3 — ► Cz1z3 ,z2l.

So a 'shift-normal form' H' e Mter(E^ -j) is a term H in which all the

memory parts are shifted to the right as far as possible. E.g. H in (i) is
not in shift-n.f., but H — — — (A(BC)„ ^ , T, = H' which is in
shift F,G,H,I D,E,J,K
shift-n.f (if A,B,C are).

4.5. DEFINITION of Red(£r -,) .

L /J
(i) Let r = H -- y H e Red(E). Then rr , is the set of rules of the form
1 2 L /J

HJ — ► [H2 ,*(H’)]

where HJ is a k-expansion of such that:

(1) HJ is linear (i.e. no meta-variable occurs twice in HJ)

(2) HJ is in shift-normal form
(3) Hj is not of the form [H,Z], or equivalently, HJ and have the same
head symbol Q
(4) the meta-variables in Hj are not k-expanded.

Requirements (3) and (4) are merely technical; a motivation will follow
soon (in 4.6.(4)).
(ii) Now we can define

Red (E r n) = U rf u {shift}.
L,J reRed(E) L'J

4.6. EXAMPLES AND REMARKS.

(1) Let r = -- y = ROZ^Z2 -- y z^ be a rule in Red(E) . Then all the
rules

h’ = Rl0,zQlz1z2 ->-lz1,R*L0,zQlz1z2l

will be in Red(Ej- -j) , where ZQ = zQ3“ -ZQm (mS:0) » zi ' Z 2 are pairwise dis-
tinct.
(2) Let E be CL ® Pairing, as in 4.3. Then we have in E the rules
cj
(among others):
 155

Z Z'

(3) Let E = A3 (-calculus) . Then (A3)r has besides 'shift* as only rule:
L /J

Bj- -j = (Ax .Z1(x ))Z2 -- ► [Z1(Z2) , (A*x.Z1(x) )z2]

where Ax.Z^(x) is written for A([x]Z^(x)) (In fact this is not quite true:
due to our inductive definition of Ter(E), in this case also A and [x]Z^(x)
are subterms of A([x]Z^(x)). Hence we should have in (A3)j- -j also a rule
r' = A([x]Z (x))^Z -- y [z (Z ),...]. But the definition of Ter(E) can be
1 Z 2 1 2
easily adapted such that it conforms to the usual one for A3-terms, thus
excluding the unnecessary rule r'.)
(4) Given a rule, say, r = Kz^Z2 --y Z^ in E, there is no need to include
in Red(Er -,) rules where the meta-variables are expanded:
K[Z ,Z][Z,Z'] -- y [Z ,... ] since in Er the meta-variables Z ,Z in
1 2 ^ 1 L,J 2
Kz Z2 -- >■ lZ^,K ziZ2 ^ ran<3e already over terms of the form [A,B].
Also there is no need to include the rule [KZ^Z2 ,Z] --- y [Z^,...]
since the LHS is merely a context of Kz^Z2 .

4.7. PROPOSITION. Let l be a regular CRS. Then Red U ) is left-linear

[,]
and non-ambiguous; hence E^- is a regular CRS.

PROOF. The left-linearity was explicitly required in the definition. As

to the non-ambiguity, it is not hard to show that a supposed ambiguity in
Red(Ej- -j) would yield one in Red(E) after erasing all the memory parts in
the pair of interfering rules.
156

(Note that the 'forgetful* rule k i Red(Er ; otherwise we would have am-
biguity, since e.g. k and 'shift' interfere.) □

4.8. PROPOSITION. The operations 'addition of underlining': E <—*- E_ and

'addition of memory': E >— *■ E^- -j commute . J.e. for every regular CRS E:

-^c,] = f e d •

PROOF. We will give the proof by considering a typical example. Let E be

AB-calculus + constants 0 (zero), 5 (successor) and J (iterator).
So

(Xx.Z1 (x))Z2
VV
Red(E)
J0Z1Z2 — > Z2
J ( S Z 0 ) Z 1Z2 ~ 21 (JV l Z2>

(Xx.Z1 (x))Z2
W
Red(E) =
1°Z1Z2 ~ * Z2
J(SZ0)Z1Z2 - Zl (JV l Z2>

(Xx.Z1 (x))Z2 - [Z (Z ) , (A. x.z (X) )Z ]

Red (Er- n) = <J0+Z.Z l z 2 , f ’0 ^ z ,1 z 2 l

i (Sv k z2— CZ1 (JZ0Z1Z2)'I*(SZ0)|Z1Z2]

(Xx.Z1 (x))Z2 -- ► [Z1 (Z2),(X x.Z1 (x))Z2]

Red (Ij-
J0ZZ1Z2 — " [Z2'J* ^ 1 Z2]
J (S W l Z2 — " [ V JZ0Zl V ' J ‘ (SZ0 )? l Z2
(Xx.z1(x))z2 — ^ Cz1(z2),(X.x.z1(x))z2:
Red (Ej- -j)
I°ZZ1Z2 ~ * CZ2'J*°ZZ1Z2]
I (SV z Zl Z2 [Z1 (JV , Z2) ' / ( S Z 0 )I Z1Z2 ] -

So we have cheated a little bit in the statement of the proposition: more

precisely, Er- n and Er are isomorphic, by letting correspond the symbols
* “ L 'J _Ll± *
0^ in E|- j to the symbols 0 in E^ -j (Q=X,J) . □

In the sequel, we will refer to the properties *increasing* (Ep Inc)

and *inductive' (Ef=Ind), defined in 1.5.16.

4.9. PROPOSITION. Er [= Inc, for all E.

' L /J
 157

PROOF. Let |M| be the length of a Er -,-term. Then obviously

L /J

M N =» |M | < |N |

for all r e Red(Er -,) , since the 'old* redex R is repeated:

L' J *
M = (C[r ] — c CCr ', R]] = N. I.e. E^- -j is increasing. □

4.10. LEMMA. Er (= SN => E |= SN.

L /J

PROOF. We will not spell out the details, since the situation is very much
analogous to that of 1.8. Sketch of the proof: suppose E SN, and let
<R = M q -- ► M^ > ... be an infinite reduction in E . Now it is easy to see
that <R can be mimicked in the following sense:

where r^ e Red(E), r^ e (rj ^ -j c Red(E^- ^) , i = 0,1,2,... . □

Now we are ready to prove one of the main theorems of this chapter:

4.11. THEOREM (Generalization of NEDERPELT [73], Thm.3.20).

For all regular CRS's E:

E |= SN.
h.i 1“ m
158

PROOF. First proof.

(Thm.3.11, Prop.4.7)
h.i h CR

(Thm.I.5.11.(2))

(Prop. 4.9)

(Lemma 4.10)
\y

T. |= SN

Alternative proof.

= WCR (Lemma 3.10)

h.j >
_1
—M1

= WN (hypothesis) = SN = > Z
' ~~ .rc : ^
!
1

1.5.19.(i) (4.10)
w

= Inc (Prop.4.9)
1
1
—1
—1

n
4.12. REMARK. The main idea in this proof is due to NEDERPELT [73], where
(essentially) the first proof is given for a special case, namely a 'typed*
A-calculus which arose from the AUTOMATH-project of de Bruijn (Eindhoven).
 159

The properties Inc, Ind are not explicitly mentioned there. Instead of re­
ductions r^- -j Nederpelt has 'B^-reduction' (where 'scars' of earlier re­
ductions are retained, as Nederpelt puts it); in our notation (forgetting
Nederpelts types) it would read

= (Ax .Z1 (x ))Z2 -- ► (Ax .Z1 (Z2))Z2 -

Nederpelt's '32 “reduction* corresponds to our k-reduction rule. Where we

use as an increasing norm, M'-- >■ |m | , the length of the £r -.-term M,
L rJ
Nederpelt defines |m | to be the length of a longest k-reduction path to
the k-normal form (obviously k is a strongly normalizing reduction); in
our notation we could, equivalently, say: |M| := the number of pairs of
[,]-brackets in M.
We quote from the 'Introduction and summary* of NEDERPELT [73]:
"In this thesis we shall show that, if in a system all terms are normal­
izable into a unique normal form, then each term is strongly normalizable.
This will be proved for a certain lambda-calculus called A, the method
can, however, be applied to more systems, and we suggest this as a field
of further investigation." In the present chapter we have endeavoured to
follow this suggestion.

4.13. REMARK. There is an obvious resemblance between the method of proof

HW L P t
in 1.8 (where we prove SN for A , A ' and A via an 'interpretation' in
Alj- -j-calculus) and Nederpelt's method which has led to Theorem 4.11 above
(Note the notational ambiguity: Alj- -j in the sense of 1.8 is not the same
as Alj- -j in the sense of Section 4 of the present Chapter.) This resem­
blance can be formulated abstractly as follows.

DEFINITION. Let A= <A, >and B = <B, -g->- > be ARS's. Let i: A ----*B
and k : B -- »• A be maps such that

(i) k © i = id^

, i.e. Vp,q e A Vr e B 3s e B

(r — ■ p — q => r B >s q)
160

(Reductions in A can be 'lifted* to B.)

Then B is called an associate of A.

Now, both in 1.8 in Theorem 4.11, the idea is to prove A [= SN by

finding an associate B of A for which SN is easier to prove; for, obvious­
ly: .

PROPOSITION. If A,B are ARS's and B is an associate of A, then

B |= SN => A |= SN. □

HW HW
In 1.8, A,B are X resp. Xlr i is as defined in Def.I.8.11 and k
I./J
as in Def.1.8.6; and M — N iff M — r-* L N for some L such that N
B p
is the [,3-normal form of L. So we have a situation as in the diagram
(where A,B are as in the definition above):

Furthermore, SN for the associate Xl^- -j was easy to prove since Xl^- -j |= NE
(non-erasing; see Section 1.7 and Section 5 below).
In Theorem 4.11, A and B are regular £ resp. -j, i is the inclusion
map, k is as before and M N iff M L --- » N for some
B rC/]
r e Red(E) and some L such
such that N is the L ,]-normal form of L. So the sit-
uation is as in the diagram:

Here SN for the associate E^- -j was easy to prove since ] h Inc-
 161

(In 1.8, Al™-, \t Inc; on the other hand Er \= NE, as we will see below.)
L /J L ,J

4.14. REMARK, (i) Note that in 4.11 we also have proved.

Er |= WN =* £r -.|=SN,

hence for all E^- ^ the equivalence WN <=> SN holds. Later on (in Section 5)
we will generalize this equivalence to the class of all ’non-erasing* regu­
lar CRS's.
(ii) If E is a regular TRS, it is not hard to prove that

(*) E |= SN => Ej- -j f= SN.

(Proof sketch: consider an innermost E-reduction <R to the normal form. Let
<R* be the corresponding E^- -^-reduction. Then the memory parts in <R' are in
normal form, and hence (R' terminates, in just as many steps as <R, in a
Ej- -j-normal form. (So E^ |= WN. By (i) , also E^- -j |= SN.)
Hence we have for regular TRS*s E:

(**) E |= SN <*» Er f= WN <=> Er |= SN.

For regular CRS's E in general, (*) and (**) require more effort; we
will return to this matter in Remark 6.2.5.(ii).
(iii) Note that E |= WN -j f= W N ; for otherwise by Theorem 4.11, we would
have E |= WN => E |= SN for all regular CRS's, an obvious contradiction.
The simplest example of a E such that E [= WN but Er WN is the
TRS with Red(E) = {Az ► 8, C ► AC}. Obviously every E-term has a
normal form. However, in E^- ^ where

Red I,- : = {Az — ► [B ,A *z], C — *- [AC,C*]}

the term C has no normal form; for, the E^- ^-reduction <R (written in the
subscript notation of 4.2(iii).):
162

C — ^ (AC)c* — * \ * CiC* — ^ b a *(AC)c *,C*

^A*B * * C*
A a *E * * C*
A B* n*>C ’
A ®a *C,C*’C

is 1cofinal1 in G (C) , the set of Er -,-reducts of C as in the figure be-

#3 ^ J
low; hence every E|- ^-reduct of C contains a redex C.
In the next two figures the reduction graphs G (C) and G (C) are
L /3
depicted. In the last reduction graph the abbreviations

® [ ] = [An,C*3
<c2r. ] = [[b, a*d], c*:

are used; moreover, 1210 denotes , etc. The bold line corre­
sponds to the cofinal reduction <R.

G S (C):

B ■ AB A(ABl
 163

We will now state the corollaries of Theorem 4.11.

4.15 THEOREM (Finite Developments) .

For all regular CRS's E : E_ |= SN.
In other words: E |= FD.

PROOF. V E : E_ f= WN (Corollary 3.9)

Hence V E : E^- -j |= ,WN.

VE: Ej- -j = E^- (Proposition 4.8) .

Hence VE: -j [= WN

Therefore
VE: E_ f= SN (Theorem 4.11). □

4.16. COROLLARY (Church-Rosser Theorem; Lemma of Parallel Moves) .

For all regular CRS's E:
(i) E |= CR+ , i.e. every construction of a Z-reduction diagram, by
164

successive addition of elementary diagrams {as in Def.3.5) terminates in

the same 'closed' diagram.
(ii) E |= PM, as in 1.6.12.

PROOF. Entirely analogous to the proofs in 1.6.9 and 1.6.12. □

4.17. NOTATION. As in 1.6, 1?((R ,^5 denotes the reduction diagram deter­
mined by two coinitial, finite reductions <R ,(R^ • Likewise we employ the
notation anal°9ous to 1-6.10.

5. NON-ERASING REDUCTIONS

The main properties of CRS's with memory Ej- are: non-erasure and
Inc. We will now focus attention on these properties, especially the first
one.

5.1. DEFINITION. E (= NE (' E is non-erasing') iff for all M,N e Ter(E):

M -- ► N => FV(M) = FV (N)

where FV(M) is the set of free variables occurring in M.

5.2. PROPOSITION. The following are equivalent:

(i) Z NE
(ii) there is a non-trivial context <c[ ] erasing a free variable x:

CCx] -- > M (xiFV(M) )

(iii) 3<C[ ] 3M VN <C[N] -- ► M A B

-------->1
(iv) there is an elementary diagram of the form I
I
(Otherwise said: there is a non-trivial elemen­ I0
l
tary diagram containing an empty step.) I
t ------- >1
C B

5.3. PROPOSITION. The following are equivalent:

(i) E |= NE
(ii) for all Z-terms M and all pairs of distinct redexes ,R £ m , con­
traction of one leaves at least one residual of the other.
(iii) Let H H' e Red(E) and let pH — ► pH' be some instance of this rule.
 165

Let H contain the meta-variable Z; then pZ(cpH) has at least one

descendant in pH' (except possibly when pZ e Var).

The routine proofs of these two propositions will be left to the

reader.

5.4. EXAMPLES. (i) CL^ ^ j (Combinatory Logic based on the combinators

S , K , J , Ch.I.2) is erasing and so is A3-calculus.
(ii) CLj j, the Al-version of CL with basic combinators I,J and rules

Iz -- y Z, -^ZiZ 2 Z 3 Z 4 — Z1Z2^Z1Z4Z3^ NE; S° is ^I~calculus•

(iii) Further, V E : E^- ^ |= NE.
(iv) E is a non-erasing TRS iff in each rule H — y H' the same meta-variables
occur in H and H'.

5.5. PROPOSITION, (i) WF => NE (def. WF: 1.5.16.(3))

(ii) FB_1 => NE (def.FB"1: 1.5.16.(4)).

PROOF, (i) We will prove the contraposition ~?NE => iWF. So assume that
E |= nNE. Then by Prop.5.2 for some non-trivial context <C[ ] and term M
we have for all N: C[N] — ► M. In particular:

--- --- ► C[<E[<C[M]]] -- ► C[C[M]] -- y C[M] -- y M,

i.e. E |= ~lW F .
_^
(ii) To prove "/NE => "7FB . Let E |= 7NE, then again by Prop.5.2. (iii) :

C[N_] C[N.] C[N_]

\ V -

Hence t FB 1. □

5.6. DEFINITION. A CRS E is finitely presented iff E has a finite set Q

of constants and a finite set of reduction rules Red(E).

5.7. REMARK. Almost all well-known CRS's one finitely presented: A3, CL,
TRS1s as defined in e.g. HUET [78], RPS's as in 1.1.13. A notable excep­
tion is AB © Church's 6-rules, see 1.15.(4) and 1.17.
166

5.8. THEOREM. For finitely presented regular CRS's E the following equiv­
alences hold:

(i) NE <=> FB_ 1

(ii) WF <=» Inc.

PROOF. (i) <= is Proposition 5.5. (ii).

=>: Let the set of constants of E and Red(E) be finite. Suppose E [= NE.
Let M e Ter(E) and consider H = {n |n --> m }. We have to prove that H is
finite; i.e. E |= FB *.
Suppose H is infinite. Then, we claim, there must be arbitrarily long
N e H. The claim follows at once from the fact that the N e H are builtup
from only finitely many different symbols, namely the E-constants and the
free variables in FV(N) = FV(M) (the last equality by E |= NE) .
Now consider a "very long" N e H, relative to |m |, the length of M,
and to the LHS's of all the closed rules e Red(E). Here a reduction rule
is called 'closed' if its LHS contains no meta-variables (e.g. Church's
6-rules). If the redex pH contracted in the step

N = <E[pH] ------ >- <E[pH'] = M

is "small", then M would have the same order of length as N, contradiction.

So our very large N contains a very large r-redex pH, where r = H -»■ H'
cannot be a closed rule since pH is very large relative to the LHS's of the
closed rules. Hence H contains meta-variables. Now for at least one of the
meta-variables Z in H, pZ must be very large. (Here we use that Red(E) is
finite; hence the number of meta-variables Z in H is bounded.) By Proposi­
tion 5.3.(iii), pZ has a descendant in pH', call it (pZ)'. It is evident
that [pZ| < |(pZ)'|, since the only thing that can happen to pZ in the
r-reduction step is•that some variables in pZ are replaced by some terms.
But then M, containing (pZ)', is very large-contrary to the assumption.
(To make the above estimations numerical, put s = the total number
of symbols in Red(E). Then choose N such that |n | > 2(s+l)|m |; now we
have |pH| > ^ (N| , because |n | = |d:[ ]| + [pH | and |m | = |(E[ ]| + |pH'|;
and moreover we have |pH| < s|pz| + s for some Z in H, since there are
< s meta-variables Z in H and there are < s remaining symbols in H.
Therefore
 167

|(pZ) ' | > |pZ| > |pH[/ (s+1) > |n |/2(s +1) > |M| ,

contradicting (pZ)' c m .)
(ii) <= is trivial.
=>: by Proposition 5.5. (i), WF =?=» NE, so by (i) of this theorem, WF => FB
By Lemma 1.6.10. (4), WF & FB * =* Inc for all Abstract Reduction Systems,
in particular for all CRS's E. □

5.8.1. REMARK, (i) By Lemma 1.5.19. (i) :

WCR & WN & Inc => SN for ARS's.

Hence, by Theorem 5.8.(ii) and the fact that for all regular CRS's the
property WCR holds, we have for regular finitely presented CRS's:

(*) WF & WN =» SN.

(ii) Below (in Corollary 5.9.4) we will strengthen (*) to:

NE & WN => SN, for all regular CRS's.

That this is really a strenghtening of (*) (apart from the fact that it
holds for all regular CRS's), follows from the fact that WF => NE (Proposi­
tion 5.5) , but not conversely (consider Red(E) = {Iz -- >• z}) .
(iii) In advance, let us note the following curious consequence of the
proposition in (ii):

PROPOSITION. Let E be a regular CRS and let N be a normal form in E. Sup­

pose there is an M such that M — »> N and M has an infinite reduction
M -- ► M' -- ► M" -- ► ...
Then there is an infinite 'inverse1 reduction
... -- > N" --- >■ N' --- > N, as in the figure:

M M' M"
---^ >---

N" N' N
168

PROOF. Let [m ] = {M' | M' M} and consider the restriction of E to [m ];

call this E . Then E„ is a regular CRS (being a substructure of one); and
M M
since [M] (= TerE .) contains a normal form, by the CR theorem: E 1= WN.
M M 1
By hypothesis E^ SN/ so the proposition in (ii),*7 NE. Hence E^ \= -|WF
(Proposition 5.5.(i)). So there is an infinite reduction in E , which by CR
M
leads to the normal form N. □

(For A,CL this proposition is trivial: consider the reduction

... -- ► H I M -- ► IIN -- ► IN -- ► N.)

5.9. The paradigm of a tegular CRS which is non-erasing, is the Al-calculus,

which was considered in 1.7. We have enough material now (namely FD,CR+ , PM
in Theorems 4.15 and 4.16) to prove theorems for non-erasing CRS's in gener­
al, analogous to those in 1.7. The proofs will be omitted as they are en­
tirely analogous to those in 1.7.

5.9.1. DEFINITION. We will say that 'the class of infinite E-reductions is

closed under projections' (or 'infinite E-reductions are closed under pro­
jections') iff whenever <R is "an infinite £-reduction and <R' a finite one,
then <R/<ft' is again infinite.

_______________ (R, infinite

9(<R,<R')

-------------- <R/<R' , infinite

5.9.2. LEMMA. Let E be a regular CRS and suppose E |= NE. Then infinite
Z-reductions are closed under projections. □

5.9.3. CHURCH'S THEOREM for regular CRS's.

Let E be a non-erasing regular CRS. Then for all M e Ter(E), the following
are equivalent'.
(i) M is weakly normalizing (has a normal form)
(ii) M is strongly normalizing
(iii) all subterms of M have a normal form. □

5.9.4. COROLLARY. For regular CRS's: NE => (WN <=> SN) .

 169

PROOF. The assertion is short for:

V regular CRS's E, £ f= NE => (E \= WN <=> E |= SN) .
This is merely the 'global' version of Church's Theorem, trivially implied
by the 'local' version in 5.9.3. fl

5.9.4.1. REMARK. Let A = <A,-+> be an Abstract Reduction System as in 1.5.1.

Let WCR* mean:

Va,b,c e A(b^c) Hd e A

a b

v
c --- > d

>1
(c -* d and b d exactly one step) and let WCR mean:

Va,b,c e A(b^c) Hd e A
a ---- > b

!*1
I
4' ^
--- » d
>1
(c d and b d consisting of at least one step) .
Then, as NEWMAN [42] Thm.2 (essentially) remarks, WCR* & WN => SN.

>1
QUESTION: does also WCR & WN => SN hold for ARS's? A positive answer would
result in an '-abstract' proof of NE & WN => SN for regular CRS's, since
NE <=> WCR“* .
However, the following ARS answers the question negatively:

c
170

For regular TRS's we can strengthen Theorem 5.9.3 as follows.

5.9.5. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular TRS and r =?= H — * H' a rule in Red(E) .
Then r is called non-erasing iff both sides H, H' contain the same meta­
variables .
If r is a non-erasing rule, an r-redex is called a non-erasing redex.
(E.g. in CL the I- and .9-reduction rule are non-erasing.)

5.9.6. THEOREM. Let Z be a regular TRS. Let <R: M — y M' ... be an infinite
Z-reduction, and let R £ m be a non-erasing redex. Then <R/{(R} is again in­
finite .
("Infinite reductions are closed under non-erasing projections.")

PROOF.

«/{ R)
T(k) T(n)

The proof is very similar to the one of Lemma 1.7.2. Consider P(<R,{r }) as
(k)
in the figure. Suppose <R/{r } is finite; then after some N , <R/{r } con-
(k)
sists of empty steps. By the Parallel Moves Lemma (4.16) the reduction
(k) (k)
is a complete development of the set 1R of residuals in M of the
originally contracted redex R. Note that these residuals are again non­
erasing.
Now let for some n > k, M ^ — ► M^n+^
be the first step in & in which
(k)
a redex is contracted that is not a residual of any member of 3R -By
Finite Developments (Thm.4.15) there must exist such an n. is a com­
plete development of I R ^ , the set of residuals of R in M ^ . Obviously,
every redex contracted in , is non-erasing, being of the same kind as
R was.
We claim that the projection of this step, i.e. M ^ — »- M^n+^ / 6 ^ n ^,
cannot be 0, however. The proof of the claim is entirely similar to that in
Lemma 1.7.2. □
 171

5.9.6.1. REMARK. For regular CRS's in general, Theorem 5.9.6 fails, as is

suggested by the above proof and is shown by the following counterexample
from BARENDREGT e.a. [76], Ch.II.5:

(Ax.KIxlft (Ax.I)ft (Ax.I)ft

T---------- > -------- > ---------- * --------- -- (ft, infinite
K ft ft ft
Ax {r }

^ / N/ V.-- <R/{r }, finite.

Kin

Analogous to the preceding theorem we have

5.9.7. THEOREM. Let E be a regular TRS, <R: M -- ► M' -- »■__ an infinite

reduction, and R c m an innermost redex (i.e. not containing other redexes) .
Then <R/{r } is again infinite.
("Infinite reductions are closed under innermost projections.")

PROOF. Analogous to the proof of 5.9.6, using the following proposition

which is easily verified:
Let I be a regular TRS, M a E-term containing redexes R^,R^ suc^ that

R 1 ^ R2 anC^ R2 an ^nnermost redex. Then:

(Note that (i) M2 — >■ is one step and (ii) M^ -» M^ is an innermost re­
duction.) n
5.9.8. COROLLARY (O'Donnell).
(i) Let E be a regular TRS and let there be an innermost reduction
(R: m — ► ... — N to the normal form N.
172

Then M is strongly normalizing.

(ii) For all regular TRS's E:

E |= WIN <=> SN,

where 'WIN' (Weak Innermost Normalization) is the property that every

term has a normal form which can be reached by an innermost reduction.

PROOF. (ii) is merely the 'global*' version of (i) .

(i) : Let R' : M — »• ... be an infinite reduction and R: M — * ... — > N be an
innermost reduction to the normal form N.

M R' , infinite

i.m

i.m %
R

i .m
.... R ' / R
N

Then by Theorem 5.9.7, R'/(R is infinite, contradicting the fact that N is

a normal form. Hence M e SN. □

5.9.8.1. REMARK, (i) Corollary 5.9.8 is a consequence of O'DONNELL [77]

(Thm.ll p.53), as is seen by noting that for regular TRS's the residual
concept satisfies the requirements stated there (Def.22), and by noting
that regular TRS's fulfill the property "Innermost Preserving" (Def.35)
defined there.
(ii) It is easy to give a counterexample to 5.9.7 and 5.9.8 for regular
CRS's in general, analogous to the counterexample in 5.9.6.1, since e.g.
A-calculus is not "Innermost Preserving" due to substitution.

5.9.8.2. APPLICATION. (Bar recursive terms)

TAIT [71] considers the TRS E = CLT (typed Combinatory Logic) © {R,6,0,4}
where R is the Recursor having reduction rules as in Example 1.12.(ii),
B is the Bar recursion operator with reduction rules
 173

BZ!Z2Z3Z4n

for each n (short for 4n0).

(The precise form of the RHS is not important for us)
In fact there are constants S,K,R,B for each appropriate type. It is
easy to see that Z is a regular TRS; also if the types are viewed as 'in­
ternal' , i.e. as elements of Ter(E).
An extension of Z is Z l =■ Z © constants for all functions f: IN — y U
and rules

(a, -- > t (f ,n,a)

where a is a type and t(f,n,cr) is some term depending on f,n,a of which the
precise form is not important for us. To write these rules in our notation,
we can adopt a constant C (for 'choice sequence') and write

Ca^ -- y t(f ,n,a) .

Note that moreover Z ' is a regular TRS.

Now TAIT [71] proves, in our terminology, that both Z and £' satisfy WIN.
Hence by Theorem 5.9.8, also Z, £' |= SN.

5.10.In the following figure we summarize some facts treated in this sec­
tion, which hold for regular CRS's. Here "f.p" is "finitely presented"
(Def.5.6)

Inc 4 WF
f.p

i
-1
FB NE
f.p

I
Infinite reductions are
closed under projections
(5.9.2)

'V'
Church1s Theorem (5.9.3) :
WN <*■* SN
174

5.11. DISCUSSION. Before we proceed to prove some more theorems about

Strong Normalization of regular CRS's in the next section, let us consider
the possibility of generalizing some theorems proved in Chapter I for
definable extensions of A-calculus, namely those concerning:
(1) Equivalence of reductions
(2) Standardization
(3) Normalization
(4) Cofinality of Knuth-Gross reductions.

Ad(l). The definition of 'Levy-equivalence' of reductions, and Levy's

results thereabout, generalize at once to the present case of regular
CRS's.

A d (2). Standardization, however, is much more complicated in the present

case than for definable extensions of A-calculus. This was pointed out by
Hindley, for the case of A-calculus © recursor R; see some examples in
HINDLEY [78]. See also Remark 6.2.8.6.(ii).
For regular TRS's a Standardization theorem is proved by HUET-LlSVY
[79]. It is remarked there that the theorem seems to extend to 'applicative
rewriting systems with bound variables', i.e. to CRS's.
At the end of this Chapter (see 6.2.8) we will prove the Standardiza­
tion theorem for 'left-normal' regular CRS's.

A d (3). The Normalization Theorem (1.11.2), saying that repeated contraction

of the leftmost redex must lead to the normal form if it exists, does not
carry over, as observed in HUET-LEVY [79], where the following example is
given. If Red(E) = {FzA >- B, C »- C, V ► A} then the term F C V has a
normal form: F C V -- > F C A -- >■ B, but the leftmost reduction is infinite:
FCV — FCV -- »• ... (repeated contraction of the redex C) .
In 6.2.8 we will prove the Normalization Theorem for 'left-normal'
regular CRS's, as a corollary of the Standardization Theorem which we just
mentioned.
In HUET-LEVY [79] the following interesting regular CRS is considered
(the example is basically due to G. Berry):

Red (E) = { FABz --- »• C

FBzA — ► C
FzAB — ► C}
 175

which leads to the question:

does there exist a recursive one step normalizing strategy for every regu­
lar CRS? (or, for every regular TRS?)
We conjecture that the answer is negative; see for a discussion of
the problem HUET-LEVY [79]. (For a precise definition of the concepts in
the question, see BARENDREGT [80]. A likely candidate to establish the
negative answer may be: CL © the above mentioned £.

A d (4). The definition of Knuth-Gross (KG) reduction (see 1.12.4) extends

readily to the present case, and so does the theorem (1 .1 2 .5 ) stating that
KG-reductions are cofinal. So KG-reductions are normalizing; and hence we
have a recursive 'many step' normalizing reduction strategy for regular
CRS's.
Also the refinement (1.12.3) stating that secured reductions are co­
final , generalizes without problems to the case of regular CRS's.

6. DECREASING LABELINGS AND STRONG NORMALIZATION

In this section we will prove some more theorems from which one can
infer Strong Normalization for regular CRS's. We remark that the proof of
SN, so obtained, does not require stronger means, metamathematically
speaking, than the proof of WN (Weak Normalization) for the system under
consideration. To be more specific: where a proof of WN uses transfinite
induction to the ordinal a, the proof of SN as obtained here requires trans­
om -r
finite induction to w . (For 'Godel's T', see 6.1.7 below, we have
a = a/* = £g.) So if a WN-proof can be formalized in Peano's Arithmetic (i.e.
if a < £g), then the SN-proof can also be formalized in P.A.

6.1. For convenience we will restrict ourselves in this subsection 6.1 to

regular TRS's; but an extension to regular CRS's does not seem to be essen­
tially problematic. Fiist two preliminary definitions.

6.1.1. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular TRS. Then E 'j- ^ is the regular TRS
defined analogously to (Def.4.5), with the only change that in a re­
duction rule only the erased metavariables are repeated ('memorized').

6.1.1.1. EXAMPLE. Let E be CL © {J,4,0}, where CL is Combinatory Logic

based on 1,K,S, and where the iterator J has reduction rules as in Example
176

1.15. (3).
Then

Red (Ej- = {Iz -- ► [Z,I*Z]

K Z 1Z2 lZ l ’K Z1Z2]

J0? i z2 CZ2'J % Z1Z2 ]

J(4Z')j z 1z 2 — ► [Zj (Jz*z1z 2) ,J*(4Z')^Z1Z2]}.

(Here 2 = zgj »Zg2 ,•- •# Z ^ for some m > 0, so the last two rules are in fact
schema's for rules; see Def.4.5.).
On the other hand,

Red (Z 'r = (IZ

L /J
KZ1Z2 - CZ1 ' Z2 ]
SZ1Z2Z3 Z1Z3 (Z2Z3>
[z 2 ,z 1,zl
J0# 1 Z2
J(4Z')|Z1Z2 [ z 1 (Jz,z 1z2) ,zl}.

6.1.2. PROPOSITION. Theorem 4.11 holds with Zr n replaced bp Z 'r . J.e.

L /J L /J
for all regular CRS's Z: Z'r |= WN => Z |= SN.
L/ J

PROOF. -j |= NE, hence: Z '^ -j |= WN => Z ' -j |= SN, by Coroll.5.9.4. The

proof of the implication Z'^ ^ |= SN => Z |= SN is analogous to the one in
Lemma 4.10. 11

6.1.3. DEFINITION. Let Z be a regular TRS and M e Ter(Z' ). Then the

L /J
set of occurrenc.es of memorized subterms of M, notation Subr (M) , is de-
fined inductively as follows:
(i) k (M) e Subj- -j(M) . Here k (M) is the k-normal form of M (k is the 'for­
getful' reduction rule defined in 4.4); so k (M) is the result of eras­
ing all memorized subterms in M.
(ii) Ag = [A,B] £ M => K (B) € Subj- ^ (M) .

6 .1.3.1. NOTATION. Instead of N e Subr (M) , we will write also: N cr _,m .

L ,J L /J
 177

6.1.4. EXAMPLE and REMARK, (i) If T = (A,_, B) having the

(DE) J,K'FL g h m n ,o rc,
shift-n.f.
(See Def.4.4):

(ABC)
(DE) ,F ,GH I
J,K L MN,0

then Subj- -j(T) = Sub^- -j(T') = {ABC,DE,F,GHI,J,K,L,MN,o}.

(ii) It is easy to see that Subj- -j(T) is invariant under 'shift*.
(iii) Note that Subr (T) c Ter(Z) (more precisely, the terms having an oc-
currence in Sub|- (T) are £-terms) .
(iv) S C[ t does not necessarily imply S <= T; unless S is "innermost
w.r.t. Cj. E.g. ABC,GHI £ T, but MN c T in (i) .

6.1.5. DEFINITION. Let I be a regular TRS.

(i) Let | |: Ter(£) -- > ORD be an ordinal assignment (or ordinal labeling).
Here ORD is the class of ordinals.
Then I |= WN| | ("I is weakly normalizing w.r.t. | |") iff for all
M £ Ter (I) not in normal form, there is a reduction step M -- >• M' such that
1M| > |M'|.

(ii) T |= DL (”E has a decreasing labeling") iff there is a labeling | |:

Ter(E) -- > ORD satisfying:
(1) Z |= WN| |
(2) M £ N => |M| < |N| .

(iii) I |= DL* iff there is a labeling ] ]: Ter(£) -- > ORD satisfying:

(1) 1 |= WN| |

(2) M £ N => 1MJ < ]N]

(3) if R = Oa ,...A (n>0) is a redex, then ]R ] > ]A.| (i = l,...,n) (I.e.
" I n l
a redex is 'heavier' than any of its arguments.)

(iv) T, |= DL" iff there is a labeling ] 1 satisfying:

(1 ) E |= WN| |
(2) M £ N => IM| < In ]
(3) A redex is heavier than any of its erasable subterms. I.e.: let
r = H -- ■>■ H' be a rule in Red(E) , and let Z be a metavariable occurring
in H, but not in H'. Let p be a valuation; so pH is a redex containing
the 'erasable' subterm pZ. Then ]pH| > ]pz].
178

6.1.6. THEOREM. Let £ be a regular TRS. Then the following equivalences

hold for £:

DL <=> DL' <=> DL" <=» SN.

PROOF. DL => DL' => DL" follows at once from Def.6.1.5. The proof of
SN => DL is easy: suppose £ |= SN and M e Ter(£) . Consider the reduction
graph Q (M) = {N e Ter(£) | M — » N}. No w define | |: Ter(£) -- ► IN by
IM | = total number of symbols in G (M) , i.e. ^Ne0 £(N) where £(N) is the
length of N.
(By SN, |M| is indeed defined.) Then it is not hard to verify that £ |= DL.
It remains to prove DL" => SN. Suppose £ |= DL"; let | | be an ordinal
labeling such that the property DL" holds. Now assign to M € Ter(£'^- -j) a
multi-set IIMil (see Def.I.6.4.1 and Prop.1 .6 .4.2) as follows:

(*) IIMil = < |N | | N 5 - n (M) & N is not a normal form>.

L ,j

CLAIM: there is a £'r -.-reduction step M -- ► M' such that Um II ^II m 'II (in
L. , J
the sense of Proposition 1 .6 .4.2.), unless M is already in £j- ^-normal
form (equivalently: unless all N c^. _j m are in £-normal form) .

If the claim is proved, we are through. For then £'r ^ |= WN, since
^-is a well-ordering by Proposition 1.6 .4.2; hence £ |= SN by Proposition
6 .1 .2 .

PROOF OF THE CLAIM. Select N c^. ^M satisfying

(a) N is not a £-n.f. and
(b) N is innermost w.r.t. 1 (see Remark 6.1.4.(iv)) such that (a) holds.
“i 'J R
By £ |= DL", there is a £-reduction step N -- ► N ’ such that |n | > |N1 |.
Now we copy in £' j- -j that reduction step:

M = <C[N*] --- > C[N'*.l E M',

where N*, N'* are such that k (N ) =? N and k (N'*) = N' . So if IIMil =
= <|n |,|p |,...>, then either
IIM 'II = < |N ' |, | 1/ .../]Qm I/]P I/ ...> if N ' is not yet in £-n.f . and for some
m > 0, subterms O,____,Q not in n.f. were erased; o r -
1 m
 179

I1m * | = < |Q |/ ..., Iq |,|p |, ...> if N' is in E-n.f. and the Q. are as above,
l m l
In both cases the ordinal |n | in the multiset IIMil is replaced by some lesser
ordinals in IIm 'II, since |N| > ]N * | by DL" (1) as noted above, and since
1Qi I < |R| < Itfl by DL" (3) resp. DL" (2).
(That the multiset IIMl! is otherwise not affected, i.e. that none of
the |P1,-.- is multiplied, follows because in the step N N' subterms
which are multiplied, must be in normal form by (b) and hence do not count
in IIm 'II, by the restriction in (*).)
So by Prop.1.6.4.2 we have indeed IIMil V5^" IIM*II. □

6.1.7. APPLICATION. Consider the CRS T = CLT (typed Combinatory Logic) plus
Iterator J and constants n for n £ I . For this regular TRS ("Godel's T")
SCHUTTE [77] (§16) proves WN via an argument due to W. Howard. This proof
shows that

(1 ) M' [ ML [m ']_
leftmost

where [ ]^: Ter(T) -- »• is an ordinal assignment. Furthermore, an in­

spection of the definition of [ ] and a short calculation show that

(2) N c M =* [n ]q < [M]

(3) [^AB]q > [B] and [J0AB.1 > [A] .

Hence (see Def.6.15(iv) we have T |= DL". Hence by the preceding theorem,

T 1= SN.

6.2. In this subsection we consider again all regular CRS's. We will prove
another theorem (6.2.4) inferring SN from a 'decreasing labeling'; however,
now the labels will not be assigned to all subterms of the terms M in
question as in 6.1, but only to the redexes of M. Cf. the 'degrees' of
redexes in A ^ and XL,P in I.3.7.1 and 1.3.9. In fact, Theorem 6.2.4 will
generalize Theorem 1.8.14 to all regular CRS's E having a certain assignment
of degrees. Analogously to AL,P and A ^ we will define EL,P and E ^ , and
prove SN for those CRS's; an application is the Standardization and Normali-
zion Theorem for a subclass of regular CRS's.

6.2.1. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS.

(i) 1R (E) c Ter(E) is the set of redexes of E . If M £ Ter(E) , then 3R (M)
180

is the set of redex occurrences in M.

(ii) Let M^,M2 6 Ter(E). Then M^-.-. — >■ iff there is a E-reduction step
-- y C'Lm ^] in which M2 is a descendant of .
(iii) Let R ^/R2 €l ^ ^ • Then iff there is a E-reduction step
<C[R^] --- y C [R2 ] in which the redex R^ is contracted and R2 has no
ancestor in c Cr ^]. ("R creates R2")

6.2.2. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS. Then E |= DR (* E has a decreas­

ing redex labeling1) iff there is a map # : 1R (E) -- y ORD satisfying for
all R ,R € 3R (E) :
(i) R1~ •~ .— y R2 => ^ (Rj) > #(R2)
(ii) R1~ ~ ~ ~ R 2 =* #(RX) > ^(R2).

(# (R) will be called the degree of R.)

6.2.3. PROPOSITION. For all regular CRS's: DR =*► WN.

PROOF. Let E be a regular CRS such that E |= DR and let M e Ter(E) . Define
IIMil = the multiset <#(R) | R e 3R (M)>. Now in an innermost reduction step
M j—^ N we have Um II/^ IINil , since R does not multiply already existing
redexes and the possibly in N created redexes have degree <#(R). Therefore
by Proposition 1.6.4.2 every innermost reduction must terminate. Hence
E |= WN. □

6.2.4. THEOREM. For regular CRS's: DR =* SN.

PROOF. We claim that E |= DR => Ej- -j |= DR, for regular E. For, suppose
E |= DR and let 3R (E) ► ORD be the given degree assignment of E; we
want to extend # to a degree assignment ^: -3R (Ej- -- y ORD with the
required properties as in Definition 6.2.2. To this end, define #j- -j(R) =
= #k (R) where k is the memory-parts erasing function from Definition
4.4. (i).

NOTATION: If R is a redex and d its degree, we write Rd .

Now the claim follows, because if in Ej. -j:

M ---- y M' resp. M ---- ► M'

U| U| U| U|
 181

then it is routine to check that k (R)-.-.— > k (R') resp. k (R) k (R').
So we have d > d' resp. d > d', which proves the claim.
Hence E |= DR => E^- ^ |= DR =* E^- |= WN =*► E (= SN, where the middle
implication is justified by Proposition 6.2.3 and the last by Theorem 4.11.
□

6.2.5. REMARK, (i) The converse of this theorem does not hold, as the fol­
lowing simple counterexample shows: consider the fragment E of CL consist­
ing of those terms which contain only K ' s and the usual rule for K. Then
obviously E (= SN since every E-term (e.g. K(KKK)KK) will be shortened in
a reduction. But E DR, since R^ = K K K KKK = R^, i.e. the redex
KKK can create itself, as in the step R ^ KK = K K K K K — + K K K = R^•
(ii) However, it is possible to define a refined version DR' of the proper­
ty DR, by specification of the context in which we have R^ * R^ resp.
R^ as in Def.6.2.2. The degree assignment is then to pairs (M,R)
where R e 1 (M) . Then one can prove: DR' «=> SN. As in the proof of Theorem
6.2.4 we have E |= DR' => Er 1 |= DR'. So E |= SN => E 1= DR' => Er 1 (= DR'
=> E f= SN, which yields a strengthening of Theorem 4.11 to:
[,]
For all regular CRS's, E |= SN <=> Er n (= WN <=> Er n f= SN. (See also Re-
L /J L /J
mark 4.14. (ii) .)

HW T t p
6.2.6. REMARK. Note that Theorem 1.8.14, stating that X , X , X 9 (for
bounded P) f= SN, is a corollary of Theorem 6.2.4, since as remarked in
1.3.7 and 1.3.9, these CRS's have the property DR.

6.2.7. Application of Theorem 6.2.4: SN for Levy-labeled regular CRS's

In 1.10 we gave a (second) proof of the Standardization Theorem for

L P i
X3“Calculus in which essential use was made of the fact that X ' \= SN
(Theorem 1.8.14) or equivalently X ^ |= SN. Now we would like to have
analogous L-labelings or HW-labelings for CL and prove CL0^, CLL,P |= SN) ,
in order to let this proof of the Standardization Theorem carry over to
CL. One method to obtain such a labeling and labeled reduction, is via
X-calculus, since CL can be defined in X-calculus. The result is however
a bit cumbersome (our procedure in the sequel will yield a simpler labeled
reduction) and moreover, we would like to have a more systematic way of
adding L€vy-labels to not only CL, but every regular CRS. We will now
describe how Levy's labeling (or that of Hyland-Wadsworth) and the
182

corresponding SN theorem can be generalized to regular CRS's E: to each £

we will associate a EL (or E*^) and prove as a corollary of Theorem 6.2.4
that £L,P |= SN for bounded P (resp. E3^ |= SN) . This will be used in turn
to derive the Standardization and Normalization Theorem for a large class
of regular CRS's.

6.2.7.1. As in 1.3.9 the set L of Levy-labels is defined: there is a set

of basic symbols L* = {a,b,c,...}, and from these L is built up by concate
nation and underlining, e.g. abca € L. The function h denotes the 'height'
of a € L (i.e. the maximum level of underlining of a), e.g.
h(abca) = 2. (See 1.3.9.)

In order to define the concept 'degree of a redex', analogous to the

one in 1.3.9, and to prove that a redex can only create redexes of lesser
degree, we need several definitions.

6.2.7.2. RESTRICTION. For technical reasons (see Remark 6.2.7.6) we will

consider in this subsection 6.2.7 only CRS's E without 'singleton redexes'
i.e. if H — y H' e Red(E), then H is not a constant 0.

6.2.7.3. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS.

(i) The relation ('sub-metaterm*) is defined for Mter(E) as for Ter(E)
with the extra clause that H. c zn (H.,...,H ), i = l,...,n, for all
i — 1 n
e Mter(E) and n-ary metavariables Z .
(ii) The relation ('left subterm') on Ter(E) is defined as follows:

(1) A c^(AB) where (AB) is an applicative term,

(2) A B C => A C.
(Note that A <=£ B <=> 3C AC - B .)

6.2.7.4. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS and H e Mter(E).

(i) A proper indexing (or proper labeling) for H is a map assigning an
L-label to every subterm of H except H itself and except the meta­
variables Z in H.
We will use the exponential notation: if H = Sz Z^Z^, then e.g.
h1 = ((5az 1)bz2) ^ z 3 is H plus a proper indexing map I.
(ii) If I is a proper indexing of H, then (I) will denote the L-label ob­
tained by concatenation of the labels from left to right as they
appear in H1 .
 183

E.g. in the example in (i) : (I) = abab. Furthermore (^E) is (I) under­
lined; in our example, (I_) = abab.
(iii) If a e L, then a x h denotes a labeling of H in which every sub-meta-
term of H bears label a.
E.g. for H as in (i): a x H = (((SaZ^)aZ2)aZ^)a . And if H = Z (1,1) for
a binary metavariable Z, then a x h = (Z(Xa,Xa))a ; we will also write
za (Xa , I a) .

6.2.7.5. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS. Then EL is the CRS obtained as

follows:
(i) Ter(£L) = {m 1 | M e Ter(E) , I some L-labeling of m }
(ii) Red(EL ) = {H1 * (I_) x H' | H H ' e Red(E) & I is some proper L-
labeling of H}.

It is routine to check that EL is a regular CRS again. (In Remark

6.2.7.16 we will mention a more 'economic1 variant of E^.)

6.2.7.6. EXAMPLE, (i) Let E be {Iz ► Z, Vz ► ZZ}; then

EL = {Xaz Z— , VaZ >■ (Z—*Z—)—“ | a e L}. An example of reduction in E^:

Pa ( IbPc)d ^ ( ( IbCc )d-(T bPc)d- ) -

0 a (Pc“ ) { _________ (pcbda^cbd^a

L
(ii) (CL © Pairing) has the rules:

((S°tZ1)^Z2)YZ3 -- ► (Z?Z3 )d ( Z ^ ) d where d = aBy

('c“z i )6z2 ~ v zr -

I az — * z^

V® ((P^ZQ)YZ^) ^ , i = 0,1, for all a,B,y,6 e L.

(iii) XL = { (X^.Z^^ (x)) ^Z2 -- y Zy-^- (&— -) | a,3 e L>. If we take a empty
184

here (since the symbol A is in 'usual' A-calculus not a subterm, it should

have no label), we find again AL of 1.3.9.

6.2.7.6.1. REMARK, (i) A reason to exclude the outermost label a of a redex

in the definition of labeled reduction, is that this allows us to treat the
labels in an associative way, i.e. we can make now the identification
a. 3 _ ot3
(A ) = A , as in the preceding example. Otherwise labeled reduction would
be ambiguous; consider e.g. the rule Vz -- >■ ZZ then we would have as cor-
responding L-reductions : (V Z) P -- >- Z— Z— . However, then

((Pax)V — (x^x^V
III? Ill
(Vax) Br — * x^Y

(ii) For the same reason we have excluded 'singleton redexes'; because there
the outermost label has to be taken into account if one wants Lemma 6.2.7.12.
However, an extension of the results of this subsection to the case where
singleton redexes are present, is possible, at the cost of the associativity
in the manipulation of labels as in (i) .

We will now define another kind of term formation tree than used so
far (see Def. 1.7) and which has the advantage that there is a bijection
between the nodes of the tree t '(M) and the occurrences of subterms in the
term M.

6.2.7.7. DEFINITION. The term formation tree t '(M) of M e Ter(E) is induc­

tively defined as follows:
(i) t '(s) = s if s = Z,0,x

(ii) t '(AB) (iii) t ([x ]A) = [x]

t * (A) t ' (B)

t ' (A)
 185

6.2.7.8. DEFINITION. Let £L be an L-labeled CRS. Let H H' e Red(E) and

H1 — ► (I) x H be a rule in £L . Let R = p (H1) be a EL-redex.
Then the degree of R is (I) .

6.2.7.9. EXAMPLE, (i) The degree of (((S°A)PB)YC)5 is a&y.

(ii) Consider in (CL © Pairing)1" the term M =

(((SaIb)c((K3 (IeIf)g)hs1)j)k ((1^°Kn)°IP)q)r)s.

Here the S-redex has degree ack, the K-redex dh, the I-redex e, and the
V^-redex &noq. In tree notation:
186

6.2.7.10. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular TRS and r = H H' e Red(E) ; say

V -
valuation p .
(i) Then every subterm S c pZ^ (for some i = 1,. .,n) is called an inter-
nal subterm of R. Notation: S c . r . All other subterms S ' of R are exter-
nal. Notation: S' c^ R.We will separate internal and external subterms in
x'(R) by a bar? e.g. as in x'(M) above.

Another example: if H = ^ - 2 ZQ)Z1 (°^3 (0'4Z2Z3)52/1'

4 f then T '(pH) =

(ii) If pH is labeled, then the label of an internal (external) subterm

will be called an internal (external) label of pH. E.g. in t '(M) above,
а, c,k,s are the external labels.

б. 2.7.11 PROPOSITION. Let R = pH be a redex. Them

(i) B c ^ r « => b has a constant occurring in H as head symbol.
(ii) A c_ B c R => A c r .
“X e “e

PROOF, (i) Routine; (ii) immediately from (i). U

6.2.7.12. LEMMA, (i) Let M^ — »- M^ be a reduction step in EL where E is a

regular TRS. Let R^ c_ M ^ , be redexes having degrees d^ resp. d ^ .
Then:
(1) R ^ R 2 => d^ = d2 (descendants have the same degree)
(2) R^ — ->■ R2 => h(d^) < h(d2) (created redexes have lesser degree) .

(ii) As (i), for E = A ® E', where E* is a regular TRS.

 187

PROOF. (i) The proof of (1) is routine.

Q
Proof of (2): let be the contractum of R^ in . We distinguish two
cases.

CASE 1. R^ ^ R 2 ‘ Consider T ' (R 2 ^ as ■‘•n t^ie (We will identify t ' (M)
and M in the remainder of this proof.)

Q
Here all internal subterms of R2 are below the bar. We claim that R^ cannot
be below the bar. For, if it was, then the upper part (above the bar) of R2
would clearly be unaffected by the reduction step -> IV^, so R2 would be
a descendant of a redex in , in contradiction with the assumption that
0
R2 was created in the step M 2 . Hence R^ as in the next figure:

0
Now consider the label a of the nop node of R ^ : this is an external label
of R^. Now a = (I_) where (I) is the degree of R^, by Def.6.2.7.5 of labeled
reduction. So the degree of R2 (the concatenation of all external labels
except that of the top node) contains (I), whence the result follows; except
0 0
possibly in the case that the tops of R2 and R^ coincide, i.e. R2 = R^.
Suppose this is the case. By restriction 6.2.7.2, R2 is not a constant
Q
- hence R^ = R^ is an applicative term AB. By Proposition 6.2.7.11.(ii),
188

A£ r The label of A is again (I) , and this is an external label of R

e 2 — 2
below the top node. Hence the result follows as above.
Q
CASE 2.
----- 2 —
c r
1 1
Let R, be an r-redex where r = H -> H '; say R„ = pH for a
1 1
valuation p. Evidently, there is a submetaterm J c^ H ' such that R^ = pJ.
I must be applicative; for J = = R is impossible by the restriction to
non-singleton redexes, and J = Z is impossible since then R^ would not be
a created redex. So J = by definition of labeled reduction, pJ^ has
label (I) where (I) is the degree of R ^ . By Proposition 6.2.7.11. (i) this
label is external for R^ and obviously it is not the top label of . So
again the degree of R^ contains (I),

(ii) When X is included, we can distinguish four cases:

1. R j ' R 2 are k°th 3-redexes
2. R j ,r2 are both TRS-redexes
3. only R^ is a 3-redex
4. only R^ is a B-redex.

Case 1 is already considered in 1.3.9; case 2 is considered in (i) and that

the lemma holds for cases 3,4 follows by a reasoning very similar to that
in (i) . □

L P
6.2.7.13. Let E be a regular CRS. Then £ 7 , where P is a predicate on L,
is defined similar to XL,P in 1.3.9.
HW
Also as in 1.3.7 and 1.3.9 we can define E , a 'homomorphic image'
L,P
of E
HW
E.g. CL has the rules:

((5n+1z1)m+1z2)k+1z3
III III

where l = min(n,m,k), for all n,m,k e IN .

HW
So for E , Lemma 6.2.7.12 says that descendants keep the same degree
as their ancestor redex, and created redexes have a degree less than that
of the creator redex.

HW
6.2.7.14. EXAMPLE. In (CL © Pairing) , consider the step

V q ((K5P)3Ta b ) V7
q (V2ab ),
 189

where all unmentioned labels are high (>7). Then the redex K VJ of degree
min (5,3) has created the PQ-redex of degree min (7,2) .

6.2.7.15. COROLLARY. If E is a regular TRS, or E = A © E ' where E' is a

regular TRS, then: EL,P (for P bounded) (= SN and E*^ (= SN.

PROOF. Immediate by Lemma 6.2.7.12 and Theorem 6.2.4. □

6.2.7.16. REMARK, (i) The preceding corollary can be generalized to the

class of all regular CRS's. It is rather tedious to generalize Lemma
6.2.7.12, however.
(ii) It is possible to use a more economic version of EL and E ^ , in which
in a x H not every subterm of H bears the label a, but only the 'initial'
subterms in some sense. We will not elaborate this possibility, but merely
mention this more economic version for CL (cf .6.2.7.13) : (CL11^) has the
rules

((Sn+1Zl)m+1z2) k+l Z
l
l
Z
3(Z
?3
l
) where L = min(n,m,k)

min (n,m)
(Kn+1z1)m+1z2 -
zi

In+1z _ zn.

HW *
It is not hard to check Lemma 6.2.7.12 for (CL ) .

6.2.8. As an application of the preceding corollary, we will derive the

Standardization and Normalization theorem for a restricted class of (A©)
regular TRS's, which will be defined now.

6.2.8.1. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular CRS and r e Red(E); r = H -> H '.

(i) The rule r is called left-normal iff in H all constants Q precede
the metavariables Z.
(ii) E is called left-normal iff all its rules are left-normal.

6.2.8.2. EXAMPLE, (i) A, CL and all definable extensions of A are left-

normal.
(ii) A © Pairing © Definition by cases © Iterator as in Example 1.15. (3)
is left-normal.
(iii) The 'proof-theoretic' reduction rule in Example 1.12.(v) is left-
normal .
190

(iv) The rules for the recursor R as in Example 1.12(ii) are n o t left-normal
However, the (proof-theoretically equivalent) rules for R as follows:

ROZ ^Z 2 y ...# ^ ^ Zq ^Z1Z2 y ••• are left-normal.

(v) Church 's generalized 6-rules are left-normal (trivially).
(vi) The rules for the combinator F in 5.11. A d (3) are typically ncn-left-
normal.

Our definition of 'standard reduction1 for a regular CRS is analogous

to the one for A (and definable extensions), see Def.I.9.1. This definition
deviates from the definition of 'standard' for regular TRS's in LEVY-HUET
[79], where Standardization is proved for all regular TRS's. Below we will
prove Standardization and Normalization for (A©) regular left-normal TRS's;
and on the intersection of those classes our definition is equivalent with
the one of L£vy and Huet (we will not prove this).

^regular
T R S ’s

W///A
Kfcl.n. c r s 's )-

V
reg . TRS's
regular C R S 1s

For left-normal CRS's the definition of 'standard' and of the standardiza­

tion procedure is very simple. Just as in I.10, all we have to do is to
permute adjacent reduction steps which form an 'anti-standard pair'.

Rn Hi
6.2.8.3. DEFINITION, (i) Let <R = MQ ----- ► — ---- >■ ... be a E-reduction,
where E is a regular CRS.
• Ri
In the step M. ------ >• M. ,. (i > 0 as far as defined) , attach a
i l+l
marker * to all the redex-head-symbols 0 to the left of the head-symbol
of R_^. These markers are persistent, once they are attached (i.e. descen­
dants keep the marker).
Then <R is s t a n d a r d , iff no marked redex is contracted.
(ii) An a n t i - s t a n d a r d p a i r of reduction steps is a reduction of two steps
which is not standard.
(iii) If <R = M q — ■+ is an anti-standard pair, we define the
"meta-reduction" (R «=> <R* analogous to Def.l0.2.1.
 191

E.g. if <R = V q (V (K17) I) »• V q (V11) >■ 1 (not standard) then

(R n=> <R* = V q (V (K11) 1) > K11 >■ 1 (standard) .

6.2.8.4. REMARK. The difference with (definable extensions of) A is that

now redexes can be created whose head-symbol is to the left of that of the
creator redex; e.g. as in V q (JVa b ) ► (VAB) .

6.2.8.5. LEMMA. Let Z be a regular TRS or let Z = A ® £' where Z* is a

regular TRS. Then the meta-reduction «==> of Z-reductions is a-cyclic and
moreover SN.

PROOF. Analogous to the proofs of Proposition 1.10.2.3 and Theorem

1 .10.2.4. (i) , using Corollary 6.2.7.15. [~1

6.2.8.6. REMARK, (i) So every E-reduction <R, for Z as in the lemma, has a
«=> -normal form; however, <R may have more than one «=> -normal form. Example

Z = (PzQ -- ► ZZ, R — y S, Iz -- ► Z},

and

fl = PR(10) — ► PRO — ► PSO ► <?S.

Now <R contains two anti-standard pairs, and

fl *=> PR (10) — ► PRO — ► RR — ► .SR — ► SS = fl

« — PR (IQ.) — ► PS (IQ) ----- ► PSQ — ► SS = fl

where are both »==> -normal forms.

(ii) Moreover, an *=> -normal form is not necessarily a standard reduction;

e.g. is not standard. If the last step of is omitted, we have a re­
duction which is not standard and for which there is no standard reduction
at all. I.e. for regular CRS's in general, the Standardization Theorem
fails. This observation is due to HINDLEY [78], who gives essentially the
same counterexample for A ® Recursor where the rules for <R are the
non-left-normal ones (see Example 6.2.8.2.(iv)).
However:

6.2.8.7. LEMMA. For left-normal regular CRS's Zz the Z-reduction <R is

192

standard <=> & is a *=*=> -normal form.

PROOF. Claim. Let £ be a left-normal regular CR$. Then the following can
not happen.

r*
n
~2

M ► N is a £-reduction step, Q e M are redex-head symbols such that

Q < 0^ (Qq is to the left of 0^). After contraction of 0^ (i.e. the redex
headed by 0 ), 0^ is marked as in N (as in Def.6.2.8.3 of 'standard')
Moreover, the 0^-contraction has created a redex headed by 0^ su°h that
0 < 0*.
-2 "0
So what we claim is that no redex to the left of a marked redex can
be 'activated' (created). (Note however that in Remark 6.2.8.6 this does
happen, in the step P R (10) --- y P R O . Here = R, = 1, 0 ^ = p m)

Proof of the claim. Obviously the step M -- y N must have the form

M = — ... (0^A) ... (O^B) . ..) —

l
N = — A) ... (^C) . ..)--

where

(0^. .. (0j!jA) ... (0_3C) ...)

is an r-redex, such that the LHS of the rule r is (0^. ..z... (0^h ) •••) •
That Qq A must be in fact a subterm of pZ, follows from the non-ambiguity
of the rules, in casu r(see also Def.1.14). However, a left-normal CRS
cannot have a rule r as displayed, since 0 should precede the meta­
variable Z. This proves the claim.
Now we can prove the assertion in the lemma, by induction on ](R] , the
number of steps in <R. Here (=>) is trivial. (<=) :
Basis. |<R| = 2: trivial.
 193

Induction step. Suppose for 1<R] = n the assertion is proved. Now let
<& = M q -- >■ ... -- y be a reduction of n+1 steps, and suppose fl is a
«=> -normal form, but nevertheless not standard. By induction hypothesis we
know that M — -+ ... -- y M and M -- y ... -- »• M ,. are standard. So
0 n 1 n+1
must be of the following form:

= 0 0
Mo -1
1
i 1
M. =
1

l Q2
2
l
*
M
_
'Q
n
Cl

i1 s°
o

M ,«

ic
In M -- y M . for the first time a marked redex 0 is contracted (other-
n n+1 t)
wise M -- y ... -- y M was not standard) .
u n
The ancestor of this redex must have been marked already by the first step
in <R; otherwise M. -- ► ... -- >■ M . was not standard. So in -- y M. a
1 n+1 0 1
redex is contracted, marking 0^. Now in -- y M a redex < 0^
must have been contracted, for if 0^ > 0^ then marks 0^ again and
M. ► ... yM would be not standard. Now 0 must have been created by
1 n+1 "2
(L / otherwise it was marked by 0 , and M_ -- y ... -- y M was not standard.
l 1 0 n
But that is the situation which cannot occur, according to the claim.
Hence <R is standard.and the lemma is proved. H

So by the preceding two lemma's we have now:

6.2.8.8. THEOREM (Standardization for left-normal regular TRS's).

Let E be a left-normal regular TRS, or let E = A © E' where E' Is a left-
normal regular TRS. Then for every Z-reduction = M^ y ... — ■+ M^ there
is a standard reduction ^ -- y .. . -- y M . □
st 0 n
194

We conclude this Chapter with a corollary of the Standardization

Theorem. The proof is entirely analogous to that of Theorem 1.11.2:

6.2.8.9. THEOREM (Normalization for left-normal regular TRS's)

Let E be as in 6.2.8.8. Then repeated contraction of the leftmost redex in
a Z-term leads to the normal form, if it exists. □

6.2.8.10. REMARK, (i) It is possible to extend these results to the class

of all regular left-normal CRS's. (Cf. remark 6.2.7.16. (i) .)
(ii) Also we expect that one can prove moreover the strong version of the
Standardization Theorem for regular left-normal CRS's, analogous to Theorem
1.10.2.8.(iii) .
 195

CHAPTER III

IRREGULAR COMBINATORY REDUCTION SYSTEMS

After having occupied ourselves in Chapters I and II exlusively with

regular CRS's, where 'regular' is short for 'left-linear and non-ambiguous'
(Def.II.1.11, II. 1.14), we will consider some irregular CRS's now. We will
mainly study the effect of dropping the left-linearity condition; only in
one instance (viz. X © Surjective Pairing) an ambiguous CRS will be con­
sidered here. (For results about ambiguous TRS's, see e.g. HUET [78].)
In section 1 we will prove that the CR property fails for some non­
left-linear CRS's. In section 2 an 'intuitive' explanation of this failure
is given, with the aid of 'infinite expansions' of terms (Bohm trees).
Finally some positive results about the CRS's in question are given.

1. COUNTEREXAMPLES TO THE CURCH-ROSSER PROPERTY

1.1. Consider X-calculus © constants and reduction rules

r z
o: v vw 0
r z
Is V 1 (VW 1
r V ( V Qz ) ( V ^ z ) z.

The 'meaning' of the constants is that they constitute a Surjective Pair­

ing (SP); from the pair Vz^Z^ one obtains the first resp. second coordinate
by applying V resp. ; the third rule gives the surjectivity, in the
sense that w.r.t. the equality = , generated by -- ► , every term is a pair:
A = V ( V q A ) (t^A) .
It was asked by Colin Mann (1972) (see BARENDREGT [74]) whether this
CRS, X © SP, has the CR property. Note that X © SP is non-left-linear (in
rule r) as well as ambiguous: there are the interferences r £ r^ (see
Def.II.1.14) as shown by the term V^(V(V^A) (V^A)) , likewise r <> r , and
196

moreover r^,r^ 5 r as shown by V ( V ^ ( V A B ) ) (V^(VAB)).

These ambiguities, however, do not spoil the property WCR:

Va b

Va b

Vo {V{VoA) {V1A))

Likewise the lack of left-linearity is no obstacle to WCR:

Here the 'disturbance' of the r-redex by the contraction of redex R to R'

is compensated by the 'mirrored' contraction of R in the step (*).
In attempts to prove that X © SP |= CR, it seems that the essential
problem is the non-left-linearity, rather than the ambiguity of the rules.
Therefore R. Hindley considered A © the constant V^ with the reduction
 197

rule

Vzz —* Z
h

and posed the question whether X © |= CR holds (cf. the problem list
BARENDREGT [75]) . A further simplification of the question was made by
STAPLES [75]/ who considered X © the constant V with the rule
s

V zz — ► E
s

where E is some 'inert' constant. In the sequel we will consider yet an­
other variant, namely X © and the rule

P, ZZ --- Ez
k

with a similar E as before. The CR-problem for this CRS is so to speak in­
termediate between the last two, and moreover the use of X © ^ will prove
to have certain technical advantages.
G. Huet and J.J. Levy remarked (personal communication) that one en­
counters a similar CR-problem when considering Recursive Program Schemes
(see 1.1.13) with the branching operation 'ijf P then A else B' and apart
from the usual rules for this operation also the rule

if P then Z else Z -- ► Z.

The same CR-problem was posed in the list of "Further Research' topics in
O'DONNELL [77].
Finally, we mention that the CR-problem for non-left-linear extensions
of X-calculus is also encountered in foundational studies, see FEFERMAN [80].

1.2. Before describing the underlying 'intuition' in the next subsection,

we will first prove that CR fails for the CRS's mentioned in 1.1.

1.2.1. As an introductory example, consider the TRS I c o n s i s t i n g of the

constants A , C , V ,E and the rules
s
(we will drop the subscript in V sometimes).
s
Now we have the following reductions:

A — ► CA — ► VA(CA) — v V ( C A ) (CA) — ► E
l
C (CA)

l
C(VA(CA))

l
C(t?(CA) (CA))

I
CE

So in order to have Z 1= CR, the terms CE and E must have a common reduct,
s 1
First some notation:

1.2.1.1. NOTATION. Let M,N e Ter(E) for some CRS Z. Then M j N will mean:
3L M — » L « — N.

Now obviously, CE j E iff CE — » E. However, the only reduction of

CE is:
CE — VE(CE) — ► PE (PE (CE)) — ► V E ( V E ( V E ( C E ) )) — * ..., hence CE -/» E.
Therefore Z M CR.
s 1

1.2.2. For the TRS Z consisting of constants A,BrV ,E and rules

K K

V zz — ► Ez
k
Cz — >■ Vz(Cz)

A — y Ca

We have an analogous counterexample to CR:

 199

A — * C A --- ► PA(CA) — »- fl(CA) (CA) — >- E(CA)

I
C(E(CA))

(where the downward reduction is again the horizontal one preceded by C)

and now E(CA) ^ C(E(CA)), as some calculations make plausible and as will
be proved later on.

1.2.3. The counterexamples to CR for the above TRS's Z ,Z carry over al-
S K
most immediately to X © and A © as follows.
For A $ Pg resp. A © 0 , let E be either a new constant or some free
variable, or put E = (Ax.xx)(Ax.xx). Let

C = YX c z . V z(cz) resp. Y Acz .P, z( cz)

T s T k
A = Y C
T

where Yt = (Aab.b(aab)) (Aab.b(aab)) is Turing's fixed point combinator as

introduced in 1.1.11 (Here we prefer Yt to Curry's fixed point combinator
Y = Aa.((Ab.a(bb)) (Ab.a(bb)) since YtM — » M(Yt M) for all M but not
YM — » M (YM) .)
Now as in 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 we have in both cases:

CM — » V m (CM)
A — » CA

and hece as above:

A — » CA — » E resp. A — » CA --- » E (CA)

i i
CE C(E(CA))

1.2.4. Before proving that CE ^ E resp. C(E(CA)) ^ E-(CA) , i.e. that

X e Vs ^ CR resp. A © \ V CR, we will state CR-counterexamples for
A © ZZ -*■ Z and A © Siirjective Pairing.
Note here that for A © V it does not work to define A,C such that
200

CM — » Vm (CM)
A — » CA

since now the reductions analogous to the ones above:

A — » CA — » Va (CA) — » V(CA) (CA) ► CA

i
C (CA)

do not provide a CR-counterexample.

The following heuristic consideration shows how one can proceed. There
are between the CRS's X ® V . V ,V, , SP 'interdefinabilities1 as in the
k s h
figure:

X x y . E ( V ( V Qx ) ( V l Y ))

Xxy.E(P^xy)

Here we used the notation <M> E Xz.zM (z^FV(M)) and KM E Xz.M.

(R e m a r k z it does not seem possible to reverse any of t h e s e ---- >- arrows.)
E.g. in X © P, ZZ -- >■ Z we can define the constant V. as Xxy.E(P^xy) ; for
^ h k h
then we have for all terms M:

V. MM E (Xxy.E (V, xy) )MM — >• — >■ E (V MM) — >■ Em .

k h h
 201

Now the (claimed) CR-counterexample for A © can easily be rewritten, to

yield (claimed) CR-counterexamples for the systems which are higher in the
above figure. E.g. the terms C,A in A © such that CM — » 'O^M(CM) and
A — » CA as in 1.2.3 can be defined also in A © V :

C'M — » (Axy.E(P x y ) )M(C'M) — » E ( P m (C'M))

In fact, let us define in A © P, :

h

C = Ym Acm.E(V. m(cm) )
T h

A = YC,
T

then we have (somevhat more directly than C',A1) :

CM — »> E(V, M(CM)) for all M

and now

A — » CA — » E(V, A(CA)) — » E (V (CA) (CA)) — » E(C A)

h h
1
C(E(CA) )

is again the (claimed) CR-counterexample for X © D^.

Similarly we find for a © SP:

CM — » E(D(Dq M) (DjfCM))) for all M

A — » CA

and reductions
202

A — »> CA — »> E(P(Pq a ) (7?1 (CA) )) — » E ( V ( V q (c a ) ) (9 (CA))) — »> E(CA)

l
c (E(c a )) .

1.2.5. REMARK., (i) Using the interdefinabilities scheme above, one can find
some alternative CR-counterexamples, e.g. for A © V^, using the definability
of V in X ® V : CM — » £ <M><CM> (KE) and A — » CA.
s h h
(ii) Our original construction in KLOP [77] was based on the TRS £ consist­
ing of constants A ,B,CtV,E and rules

Vzz --- ► Ez
Cz --- ► Pz(Cz)
A — ► VAB

B — v C(VAB)

Using the abbreviations A := V A B and □ := PA(CA), we have reductions

□ = PA(CA) Vnn En

CA
V(En) (CA)

V(En) (C(En))

and now En K V(En) (C(En)), as is made plausible by considering that

(i) En 1 V (En) (C(En)) => Ed 1 C(En)
(ii) C(En) — ► V(En) (C(En)) .

This TRS can be defined then in A © ^ by means of the m u l t i p l e fixed

point theorem in 1.1.11 (necessary since A,B are defined in terms of each
other) .
H.P. Barendregt remarked that this construction could be simplified
as in 1.2.2 above, thus requiring for its definition only a s i n g l e fixed
pdint construction.

We will now prove that the claimed CR-counterexamples are indeed

counterexamples.
 203

1.2.6. DEFINITION. Let l be X © V , , V , V , or SP

--------- k s h
(i) We will call a finite I-reduction <R special if <R = <R^ * where (R^
is a standard 0-reduction and <R_ is a sequence of P-steos (i.e. P ,P. ,
D s n
P^ or P'Pq 'Pj“Steps). Here * denotes concatenation of reduction se­
quences .
(ii) A Z-conversion T is a finite sequence T = — ... — Mn (for
some n £ 0) where each — is either — ► or *<-- . A conversion V which
is not a reduction, is called special if it consists of two converging
<Rj_ 0*2
special reductions i ‘e ' r “ M ---- » N « ---- L for some M,N,L and
special <R ,6L.
* ^ .»i
Notation; ? = <R^ * ^ .
CLii) |&| denotes the total number of symbols in the reduction <R; i.e. if
<R = ML — >■ ... — ► M then |<R1 =
0 n
Z*}i=0A 1m . | where 1m . | is the length of
i i *
V
If r = (Rj * (t~l, then |r| = Ifljl + |<R2 I.

1.2.7. PROPOSITION.

(i) X © (Vzz
S
— ► E) 1= pp.P , „V g

(ii) x © (Dkzz — ► Ez) (= ppgjp

(I.e. the D-steps can be postponed; see Def.1.5.2.(5).)

PROOF,
,,— — (i) Let r be the rule Ps ZZ — ► E. Define M --- r* N iff N ----
r ► M.
L.- 1.
According to Proposition 1.5.5: if 0 commutes with r"1, then PP0 holds.
Pi*
Now it is easily checked that

VA,B,C3D

V------- V
B 0 D

Note that here B — 5 — ► D is one step; hence it follows easily that 0 and
-1 ^
r are indeed commuting.
(ii) The converse of the rule r ® Pzz — ► Ez is r * = Ez — ►PZZ; and
A= X © r" 1 is evidently a regular CRS. In fact, A is a definable extension
204

of A-calculus. Therefore, by Corollary 1.6.13, B commutes with r Hence

as in (i) , A © r |= PP^ p. fl

1.2.8. THEOREM. A © (V ZZ -- ► E) M CR.

■■— ■ ■ s 1

PROOF. Consider the reductions A — » CA — » E as defined in 1.2.3.

~~ i
cE
We claim that CE-J--E, or equivalently (since E is a normal form), that
CE -/*> E. For, suppose that cE — » E, then, by Proposition 1.2.7 (i) and the
Standardization Theorem for A, there is a special reduction (ft from cE to E.
Suppose moreover that (ft is a minimal special reduction from CE to E, in the
sense of | |, as in Def.1.2.6.(iii).
Since (ft is special, it is easy to see that (ft must be of the form

(ft: CE = Y ( A c z .P z (c z ))E
T s

(Ab .b (Y b)) (Acz . V z(cz))E

T s
1£ -
(Acz . V z (cz))cE
s
.m

1*.m
V E(cE)
s
BI standard (ft*

psj.

V EE
S
Ps j

(Here — «-- ■* denotes a 'leftmost' reduction step; i.e. the contracted redex
t •ro.
is the leftmost redex of the term.)
However, the reduction (ft', indicated above, contains in an evident
sense a reduction (ft": cE — » E, which is moreover a special reduction.
Furthermore 1<ft"I < |(ft] , contradicting the minimality of (ft.
Hence cE E. □
 205

1.2.9. THEOREM. A © (0 ZZ -► Ez) U CR.

------- k r

PROOF. Consider the reductions

.A » CA -- » E(CA)

i
c (E( c a ) )

as defined in 1.2.3. We claim that E(CA) ^ C (E(CA )). Suppose not. Then there
is a conversion r = as follows:

for some term L. Here we may suppose that (R^ ,<R are special reductions
(Def.1.2.6), as in the proof of Theorem 1.2.8; so T is a special conversion.
Now let T be moreover a minimal (w.r.t. | |, cf. Def.1.2.6.(iii)) special
conversion between E(CA) and C(E(CA)). Analogous to the proof of 1.2.8,
<&2 must be of the form

C(E(CA) )
3j£.m.
0(E(c a )).(c (E(c a ))) 'l
B^standard
60

V, L ’L'
k
l
El *

i
206

But then the above indicated reduction <R' contains clearly a reduction (Rj :
E(CA) — » L 1 and a reduction ': C(E(CA)) — » L' . That is, (R1 contains a
-1 ^
conversion T' = between the two terms in question. Also it is ob­
vious that Ir '1 < |<&2 1 ^ |T | and that T' is special, contradicting the
minimality of T. □

1.2.10. THEOREM.

(i) X © (P,_zz --- >■

h

(ii) X © SP y CR.

PROOF. For the present CRS1s we do not have PP0 ^ (Postponement of P-steps)
----- p,V
as before. (E.g. consider P Ill — * II — 0— »- I.) However, locally the si-
h V p
tuation is the same; to be more precise: G (CA) 1= PP Here CA is the
p tV
term defined in 1.2.4 and the 'reduction graph' G (CA) is the restriction of
the CRS in question to the set of reducts of CA.
For (i) as well as (ii) , we will prove that G (CA) CR using the
previous theorem and an isomorphism argument.
(i) Let C ^ A ^ be the terms C,A as defined in 1.2.3 for X © P^, and C^, A^
the terms C,A as defined in 1.2.4 for X © P :
h

Ck 5 V C2- V (CZ) and \ = YTCk

Ch 5 YT Xcz.E(Dhz(cz)) and ^ 5 Y^.

Note that in G(C^A^) every P^ appears in the form ... (P^PQ)..., and that
in G (C^A^) every P^ appears in the form ...(EfP^PQ)) ... . (The proof is a
routine exercise.)
Now define a map e: G (C^A^) -- >- G (C^A^) as follows: if M e G (C^A^) ,
then e(M) = the resiiltof replacing every subterm P^PQ £ M by EtP^PQ) .
(To be more precise: e is inductively defined by

e(x) = x, e(Pk) = e(E) = E

e(Xx.A) = Xx.e(A)

e(P. PP) = E (P e(P) e( Q))

k " h
e (AB) = eA(eB) if AB is not of the form P PQ.)
 207

Then one easily verifies that e is an isomorphism between (7(C^A^) and

G (C^A^) an<^ ^ (C^A^) -^n t^ie sense that

1} e(Ck \ ) = Ch*h
2) e is a bijection between Ter G (C^A^) and Ter G (C^A^)
3) for all M,M' e G (C^A^) :

M' e(M) — > e(M')

M' e(M) -ap* e(M') .

h

Hence the proof in 1.2.9 that GCc^A^) M CR carries over immediately to

G(C^A^) Y CR' via £*

A l t e r n a t iv e p r o o f . Since in G (C^A^) every V occurs in a context

-- E (P^PQ) , a P^-reduction step in G(C^A^) must have the form
-- ECP^PP)— -- > — Ep — . This means that P^-reduction in GCC^A^) can be
thought of as the converse of the reduction given by the rule

r = EP --- ► E (P PP) ;
h

and A © r is obviously a regular CRS, hence CR. Therefore (as in Prop.

1.2.7) by Corollary 1.6.13 and Proposition 1.5.5, we have

G!Ch V ^ PP6,0 •
h

The remainder of the proof is then entirely similar to that of the pre­
vious theorem.
(ii) A similar argument as in (i): let C ,A be C,A as defined in 1.2.4
SP sp
for A © SP:

C = Y Acz.E(P(P z ) ( P (cz)) and A = Y C .

sp T 0 1 sp T sp

Now £: G(C A, ) -- ► G(C A ), defined by: £ (M) = result of replacing each

k Jc sp sp
subterm P^PQ £ M by

E(P(t>QP) (PjQ)) ,

is an isomorphism between the two. reduction graphs., analogous to the case

208

in (i). (Note that in G(C A ) no P -,P -steps are possible, only 3-,V-
sp sp 0 1
steps.)
Hence the result follows as in (i).

Alternative proof. Analogous to the alternative proof above, we have

G(C A ) |= PPQ „
sp sp 1 B,V

since P-reduction in G(C A ) is in fact the converse of r -reduction,

sp sp
where

r* = Ep -- *- E ( V ( V q P) (Ip?)) .

The remainder of the proof is then again similar to the precedina cases.

1.2.11. We will now prove that there are similar CR-counterexamples for some
other non-left-linear CRS's, namely:
(i) For the TRS1s E, ,E as in 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. The proofs that the terms
k s
CA as defined there yield indeed CR-counterexamples, are merely sim­
plified versions of the ones for A © P^P^.
(ii) Likewise for the TRS's E^ and E corresponding in the same manner to
A © P
and A © SP.
h
(iii) For CL ©
s k
P /P,
there are CR-counterexamples similar to the ones above,
bearing in mind that CL allows the analogous fixed point construc­
tions (see 1.2) and that the same necessary theorems (Standardization,

ppCLy hoid-
(iv) For CL ©
h
P.
, SP there are also similar counterexamples; but in the
proof that they are indeed so, there is a technical obstacle. We will
deal with these “7CR-proofs below.
(v) For several other non-left-linear extensions of A and CL there are
analogous CR-counterexamples. We will give three examples:

(1) A © P^ where the constant P^ has the reduction rule P^ZZZ -- >■ Z. Now
P can be defined in A © P as Axy.P xyy, and a CR-counterexample for
h J i
A © P^ is easily found by rewriting the one for A © P^. (Instead of
take P^xxy.)
(2) Let E be the TRS with constants 0, + ,- and rules 0 + Z Z
(z1+z2)+z3 — ► z1+(z2+z3)
(-Z)+ Z -- ^ 0
 209

(Instead of + AB we have used the infix-notation A + B.) Then A © £ CR.

For, the counterexample for A © can be rewritten: take E = 0 and P^xy :=
(-x) + y. (Note, however, that £ |= CR by Newman's Lemma.)
(3) Let £ = A © _if x then y else z be A plus a branching operation defined

by: if T then Z^ else Z^ -- ► Z^

if 1 then Z^ else Z^ ► Z^

if ZQ then Z^ else Z^ >- Z^

Then £ ^ CR. For, writing B(x,y,z) instead of if_ x then y else z, we can
define P as follows: P_ := Aab.B(I,a,b).
h h
(It should be noted here that it does not matter whether one extends
A by B(x,y,z) or by B, the difference being that B(x,y,z) has always three
arguments, whileB can occur 'alone1, as e.g. in (Ax.x)B.
For CL however, there is a crucial difference: CL © B ^ CR, analogous
to CL © V CR (see below) , but CL © B ( x ,y ,z ) |= CR! This will be proved
at the end of this chapter.)

(vi) For An © P, ,P ,V. , SP the CR-counterexamples are the same as for A.

h s k
The proof that they 'work' requires several technicalities however;
see 1.3 below.

1.2.12. THEOREM. CL © P_ t* CR.

------- h v

PROOF. Translation (by means of t 1 as in I.2.5.1) of the CR-counterexample

for A © P, , viz.
h

CA = (Yt Ac x .E(Px (c x )))(Yt (Yt Ac x .E(Px(cx)))),

yields: t '(CA) = nnY (nn (Ti'nT) ) where n = T 1(Aab ,b (aab) ) and

y = x 1 (Acx. E(Px (cx))) = S(K(S(KE))) (SP) .

CLAIM 1. In ^(CA) a subterm PPQ can only occur in a context

- -_ ■ 1 CL /V
(i) . ..E (PPQ) ... or
(ii) ...KEb (VPQ)... for some B.
(If (ii) were not the case, postponement of P-steps in G ^(CA) would
CL,i/
follow immediately, by an argument as in Proposition 1.2.7.)
210

Proof of the claim

In G c l ,p(CA) the symbol V can only occur in the following subterms:

M x = y = S ( K ( S (KE))) (SV) ,

= K(S(KE ) )X(SVx) , for some X (the head reduct of M^X) ,

= S ( K E )(S V x ) for some X,

= KEY(SVXY) for some X,Y (the head reduct of M^Y),

m
D
= E(SVxy ), m ' e
D
KEy (Vy (xy)),
M = E(P y (XY) ) .
6
Therefore claim 1 follows.

CLAIM 2 . Let E be CL extended with constants V , E and the reduction rules

Ez > E(V ZZ) ('E-reduction')

KEz^Z^ * K E z^ (V z^ Z ^ ) ('KE-reduction')

(so E is ambiguous).
Let ' (K) E-reduction' be 'E- or fCE-reduction'.
Then (K ) E-reduction commutes with CL-reduction (i.e. I-, K - , S-reduc
tion) .

Proof of the claim

That (K ) E - and CL-reduction commute weakly, is easily checked; the most

noteworthy case is:

KEa b — ££— ■* KEa (Vb b )

n ik
Eb — ^— >■ E(Pb b )

The proof that they also commute is not immediately obvious (since (K ) E-

reduction is duplicating) and requires some argument, e.g. the following.

Let us introduce underlining of redexes in E; only the head symbols

of E-, I-, K-, S - redexes may be underlined and of a KE-redex the two head
symbols may be underlined. The rules for underlined E-reduction are:
 211

Iz — v z,Jz1z2 — zl( S2lz2z3 — V Z ^ Z ^ ) ,

Ez — >- E(Dzz), KEz 1z 2 — ► K E z 1 (V z 2 z 2 ),

E Z1Z2 — " —Z2 ' £ Z12 2 — " •

Now underlined reductions are also weakly commuting; again the most note-
worthy case is:

KEa b K E a (Vb b )

\ k
4 —
Eb E (V BB)
E *

To prove that E |== SN (i.e. 'Finite developments' for E) we can employ the
method of weights as in 1.4.
Every constant (say K) in a E-term will have a weight (|K|) attached
to it; during a ^-reduction the descendants of a constant keep the same
weight, with one exception.
Here the concept of descendant is for the CL- and E-reductions the
usual one (note that CL © E-reduction is a regular TRS, for which we have
defined a 'canonical' concept of descendant); for KE-reduction it is de­
fined as follows:

KEa b
i i' *
i1 I
iii \\
iVi
KEa (Pb b )

If M e Ter (E_) , a weight assignment for M is called 'good' iff:

|I| = |K| = 1 , for all T_, K_ in M;

|T| = |K| = |S| = \V \ = IEI = 0, for not underlined constants;

in each SABC M, |S| > 2 ]CI (where 1C| is the sum of all the weights in
C) ; in each Eb , ]EJ > 2 ]BI ; in each KEAB or KEa B c m , |K1 = 1 and |E ] >
2 1B | -
R e d u c t io n of T-terms plus weights is as usual (descendants keep their
weight) with the following exception:
212

K 1Ea a b — > K ° E 0 h ( V m )

K^Ea a b — i K^AtfteB),

i.e. the E loses its weight.

(Several other definitions work just as well.)
Now it is a matter of simple computations to check that
(a) the weight of a redex > the weight of its contractum,
(b) a 'good' weight assignment remains so during reduction,
(c) terms lose weight during reduction,
(d) every JC-term can be given initially a 'good' weight assignment.

(Cf. the proof of Theorem 1.4.1.11.)

Hence _E f= SN. Therefore, by the usual arguments, E |= CR, and since
(K)E- and CL-reduction steps 'propagate' as similar steps, we have proved
that (K)E- and CL-reduction commute. Hence by Proposition 1.5.5 the "con­
verse (K)E-steps", i.e. the P-steps, can be postponed. So we have
G ft(CA) \= PP and the remainder of the proof that CA yields a CR-
counterexample is similar to previous cases. □

1.2.13. REMARK. The proof that CL © SP CR is similar and is left to the

reader.

1.3. In this subsection we want to extend the above negative CR results

from A to An (or ABn~calculus; see Chapter IV). We will do this by showing
that the term CA, as in the CR-counterexamples above, has no ri-redexes in
its BP-reduction graph G^p(CA) (hence G^p(CA) = G^p(CA) and we are done) .
To establish this fact requires some technical considerations; as a pre­
paration to the first technical proposition, but also for its own sake, we
will describe a method of proving a property P for all B-reducts of some
term M (i.e. G (M) 1= P, or G (M) k VN P(N)) . Such a method is desirable,
p p
since often G (M) is very complicated. One method is mentioned already in
B
1.12: there a cofinal reduction in G (M) is used. Instead of proving
p
G (M) |= P, it suffices to prove P for the terms of <R. But this method
B
works only if the property -7 P is invariant under B-reduction; the typical
example is: P (N) <==> N contains the free variable x. This 'cofinality method'
is not applicable for our purpose below.
We will now describe another (somewhat heuristical) method to prove
G (m ) |= P, which is based on the Standardization Theorem.
 213

1.3.1. DEFINITION. (i) M is in head-normal form (h.n.f.), w.r.t. B-reduc-

-f ->■
tion, if M is not of the form RS for a B-redex R and some S = S„...S (n>0).
->• I n
R is called the head-redex of RS.
(ii) Head-reduction is the contraction of the head-redex, if present.
Notation:' M —r-*- N.
h
(iii) Let N c m . N is called a derived subterm of M, notation M ----- ► N,
— der
iff N is a proper subterm of M, not in h.n.f., which is maximal in that
respect. Otherwise said: iff (1) N £ M, (2) N not in h.n.f., (3) N' £ N &
N' not in h.n.f. M. If M ----- »■ N, then N is said to be obtained by
der
derivation of M.
(iv) Let A „ ,.. .,A (n>0) be the derived subterms of M. Then we will write
1 n
M e <C [A ,...,A ] where <C, [ ] is a n-ary context, called the head-
h l n h
context of M.

DEFINITION. The c o n d e n s e d B~ r e d u c t i o n g r a p h of M, notation: G°n

1.3.2. ---------- p (M) ,
is the least structure containing M and closed under head-reduction and
derivation.

1.3.3. NOTATION, (i) If N c N' e G (M), we write N e G (M). Here

------- p p
p = B,Bn/BnP.
(iii) In the remainder of this subsection, P will stand for P, .
h
(iv) CA is the term as in the CR-counterexample for A © P^, i.e.:
CA = t y (t (t y )), where t = = (Aab.b(aab)) (Aab.b(aab)), and
Y = Acx.E(Px (cx)). Furthermore, t ' = Ab.b(xb), the head-reduct of t .

1.3.4. PROPOSITION, (i) If (Ay.P)Q e G (CA), then either Q is a variable x

or Q is a closed term.
(ii) if PMN e G3p(CA), then M = x or M is a closed term.

PROOF. Define the property P by: P (M) <=> every argument B of a B-redex
(Ax.A)B in M is either a variable x or a closed subterm. So we wish to
prove: G (CA) |= P.
p

CLAIM. G^(CA) h P=»G„(CA) |= P.

----- p p
If the claim is proved, we are done; for, it is easy to check for the finite
G^(CA) (shown on p.215) that P holds for every term. (Remark: the reverse
p
implication (<=) can be easily proved.)
214

Proof of the claim. Suppose there is a reduct M of CA such that 1P(M). We

Q
have to show that there is some N e G (CA) such that ~7P(N) .
p
Let (R be a standard reduction from CA to such an M; suppose (R is of
minimal length. Say (R is CA = M M, -- y .. . -- > M = M. (R starts with
0 1 n
a (maybe empty) head-reduction: Mn
o h v ••• I T \ = ch CAi....V for some
k . Here <E [ , . ] is the head-context of and A^,...,A are the derived
h
subterms of M^. Note that A^ ,. .. ,A are by definition elements
of G q (CA). If k = n we are done, therefore. Otherwise: due to the special
p
nature of P and to the minimality of (R, the remainder of (R will proceed
entirely inside one of the A ,. ..,A , say A.. So (R will proceed by a (pos-
1 P D
sibly empty) head-reduction of A^ : A_. C'CB,,...,B ], for
h i q
some P having B^,...,B as derived terms. Here we suppress the context
C. [A. ,. ..,A. ,,n,A. ,,...,A ] of the terms A t,...,P. Again the remainder of
h 1 3 -1 3+1 p 3
<R proceeds entirely inside one of the B^,. ,B , say B . In this way (R gives
q s
rise to a path CA = M M. -+ A . . . . -T-+ P B
O h h k der 3 h h der s
______ V __ TvT ■... N in G (CA) to some N(c m ). By the special nature of the
t +>
T
tl' der n p n
property P and in view of the head-contexts which have been removed along
this path, it is evident that7P(N) (after a careful consideration of
Gg(CA)).
(ii) From (i) we know that every 'substituted subterm' in G (CA) is either
p
a variable x or a closed term. Hence (ii) follows for G^ (CA) . For G^(CA)
the proposition follows easily now, using Postponement of P-steps. □
 215

, 2 . * (ty)
x y (t y ) t
r"y~ ----- W
>f
T 'Y (t ^ ly) -----------------------------------> 2
T y

ft
Y (^y ) (t y) ty
/ /r-y-
\r /

(Ax . E ( [Vx (t j x ) ) ) t 2y ) T 'Y

\
>f /
E(V(r 2y) ( t y ( t 2y ) ) ) Y (t y )

\x .E(Vx (t j x ))

4 ^_______ .
TY X .A

V/ J
T 'X

Y (t y ) x
The condensed reduction graph
<£(c a ). \/
P
(Ax.E(Vx( t y x ) ))x

E (Vx(ryx ))

1.3.5. DEFINITION. AI(-calculus) is the substructure of A where in every

(sub)term Ax.A(x) the variable x occurs at least once in A(x). Likewise
All is defined: the x in Ax.A(x) occurs at least twice in A(x).
Obviously, Ter(All) is closed under B-reduction.

1.3.6. PROPOSITION. Vxx ft

(V CA) •
216

PROOF. Suppose not, and let (R be a minimal special (see Def.1.2.6) (^-re­
duction from CA leading to a subterm Vxx.
So <R = CA --- -— 3 7 — M ----- »----- » N 3 Vxx.
B, standard V —
Now we must have a V x x m , i.e. by the minimality of <R, M — » N is the

empty reduction. For, a V x x can only be created by a P-step as follows:

Vx(Vxx) -- »• V x x or V ( V x x ) x -- »• Vxx. But then we have an Earlier' V x x ; con­
tradiction with the minimality of <R.
Hence V x x e G D (CA) . However, this cannot be the case, as an inspection of
c P
GQ (CA) (preceding figure) shows. (Alternative argument:
Vxx e G (CA) I = Xx.x e G D (CA), otherwise Vx(cx) £c CA
CA cannot have V x x as
p p
descendant. But CA e XII © V, hence G (CA) c XII V; however I i XII © V.)
p “
n
1.3.7. LEMMA. G p(CA) = G p(CA).

PROOF. We have to prove that if R E Xx.Mx (x^FV(M)) is an n-redex, then

R fc Ggp(CA). Suppose there is such an R e G^ q (CA). Note that R & XII © V.
Since CA e XII © V and XII © V is closed under B/ there must be a P-step
P —p— > Q such that P c XII © V and Q i XII © V. Therefore the P-redex con­
tracted in this step, must be of the form #A(x)A(x),where x has one free
occurrence in A(x) . But then by Proposition 1.3.4. (ii) , A(x) = x. However,
this is impossible by Proposition 1.3.6. □

1.3.8. ----------
COROLLARY. Xn © £>h U CR. □

1.3.9. REMARK. In likewise fashion one can Drove that Xn © V, ,V , S.P.

------- • k s
CR. The proofs are very much similar to the proof of 1.3.8 and will be
left to the reader.

2. INTERMEZZO. An intuitive explanation via Bohm trees-.

In order to 'explain' the failure of CR for the non-left-linear CRS's

which we considered above, it is convenient to use the concept of Bohm tree
(BT) of a term M; notation BT(M). This BT(M) coincides with what is called
the value of M in e.g. BERRY-LEVY [791. We will not give a precise defini­
tion of BT(M) here; see BARENDREGT [80] for such a definition (for the
case of X-calculus) or the paper just cited (for RPS's). Let us merely in­
troduce the concept by an example. Consider the regular part of E as in
s
 217

1.2.1, i.e. the TRS with the rules Cz >• V z ( C z ) , A ► CA. Then one can
develop an "expansion" (cf. the decimal expansion of numbers) of say the
term CA, in an attempt to find a normal form, as follows:

CA — ► V A (CA) — ^ V ( C A ) (CA) — » V(V A (C A )) (PA (CA)) — ► ...

or, in tree notation, where PQ,...Q is written as P

1 n
•/\
CA -> V -» V -> V,
A7 \
i
c7
i
\ i
V V

A A A A7 \ A7 \
I I
A A

In this way we find, as the 'infinite normal form' of CA, the tree
A E

V ' V

v / \ p/ x t>
/\ /\ /\ /\

and this is BT(CA).

The same expansion is possible in A-calculus, CL, or other regular CRS's.
(Note that we restrict ourselves to regular CRS's in computing B T 's ; for
then we are assured of the unicity of the BT, regardless of the particular
computation. In fact, one can prove the CR theorem for infinitary reduc­
tions of infinitary terms, i.e. trees, if the reduction rules are combina­
tory and regular in the sense of Chapter II and this Chapter. The BT's are
then the unique normal forms.)
Now consider again BT(CA) e A. We will now extend the non-left-linear
V - r eductions to trees (say for V ):
s

for arbitrary trees t .

T
/ \ T
218

E .g. we have the reductions:

= V H E
/ \
A V
, / \
IA V
; / \
| a A
l
V
/ \
E V
/ \
E V
/ \

It is still possible now to find a common reduct, namely by "compensating"

the "balance-disturbing" P-steps in the vertical reduction:

V - -> V -> P - ■» P - E
/ \ / \ / \ / \
E V E V E P. E E
/ \ / \
E/ X V
E7 \
EAE E
E E

However, if we had executed infinitely many V-contractions in the vertical

reduction, as in the next figure, we would have lost the possibility of
'compensating':

A H fl --- » E
/ \
A V
A7 \
1 a7 \
/ \

-A
EA f
l
EA E V
/ \
 219

because here the trees E and e = V have obviously no common reduct.

^ e E
Now this is precisely what happens in the CR-counterexamples above:

BT(CA) = A = v -------- E

H r -----
_
ZA / \
---- -> V V
ZA / \
------- - v
I^ / \
I
(Here the intermittent arrows
1
suggest where the V and E
BT(CE)
A V
settle down in the BT.l
/ \
EA
--*E ^

That is, the (finite) reduction CA — » C E has had the same effect, in the
corresponding BT's, as the infinite vertical sequence of infinitely many
V-steps.

That it is indeed plausible that E ^ C E follows from the particular

state of their BT's in view of the following facts, which we will not prove
(since this is only an intuitive explanation):
(1) the BT of a term is invariant under B-reductions;
(2) if M p--> N then BT (M) — jj~>> BT (N) , where — p— » is a possibly infinite
sequence of P-steps

For V 1 the BT's corresponding to the terms in the CR-counterexample

k
in 1.2.2, 1.2.3 are:

l A
0 V
A / \
E 0 E V
l I / \
A A E V
220

and for £* :

BT(CA) = C = E E B T (E (C A ) )
I
I
1 V
C
l

BT(C(E(CA))) = <P = E E

A E'
i
l
.V.
E
I
E
i
E
l
V
1 V V E/ V
\ y \ a \ i
E] E| Ei Ei Ei E1 V
1 1 * i i 1 A \
V V V V V V V E
A \ A \ /\ _/\ i
E E E -- A/A A E V
I I i
V V D EX X E
/\ / /\ /\ I i
E E E E V
I I I I A \
V V V " E E
l\ l\ l\ I I

and the same intuitive reasoning applies.

As a final remark to this intuitive intermezzo, let us conclude that
the above examples show that also when dealing with infinite "term-trees"
and infinite 'combinatory1 reductions (of ordinal length) of them, the
left-linearity of the reduction rules is a necessary condition for the
CR property.

3. ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES OF X (CL) © £> ,P ,0 ,SP

h s k

The CR-property failing for the above discussed CRS's

X (or CL) © P, ,V ,Vn ,SP, some other questions arise about them: namely
h s k
whether they are consistent, whether the property UN (Uniqueness of Normal
forms, see Def.I.5.6) holds, whether the property NF (Def.I.5.6) holds, and
whether these CRS's are conservative extensions of X (or CL). In the
 221

presence of CR, all these properties would have been corollaries, as re­
marked in Theorem 1.5.11.
In order to answer (most of) these questions, we will need some pre­
paration: a technical lemma and a theorem which is of independent interest.
The lemma, which follows now, is a partial CR result. It says that given
a term A and two divergent reductions A — » C, A — » B, a common reduct can
still be found, if one of the two reductions is free of P-steps. Note that
this is consonant with the above CR-counterexamples, where in both reduc­
tions a P-step occurred.

3.1. LEMMA. Let T, be A © P ,P. ,P, ,SP. Then B-reductions commute with ar-
s h k
bitrary reductions, i.e.:

VA,B,C 3D

(Here is a B-step o r V - step.)

BP
Similar in case I = E' © V ,V.,V1 ,SP, where £' is a r e g u l a r TRS.
s h k

PROOF. A simple argument shows that the statement in the lemma is equiv­
alent to the case where the reduction A -- » C consists of one V-st e p :

VA,B,C 3D

and similarly for Z'. Let us first deal with the simpler case of say
£' = CL. So suppose that A -p— »■ C and A » B; say A = <£[Pp p ] where Pp p
is the P-redex contracted in the step A > C. (The case of SP is similar.)
So C = <£[E], resp. (CCEp I, resp. (C[p ! depending on which CRS we are con­
sidering; say this is CL 0 V , then C E d[P], (The other cases are similar.)
Now underline in A » B the redex Pp p in A and all its
CL
222

descendants in <R. So B contains underlined subterms Vo^R^,...,Vq ^R^ for

some t > 0 ("unbalanced" descendants of the "balanced" P-redex VPP) . Ob­
viously all these underlined subterms are disjoint, since (R is a CL-reduc-
tion.
(R can be separated into an "internal" part and an "external" part
w.r.t. the underlined subterms, by calling a step in (R internal if it takes
place inside an underlined VQR, external otherwise. Let ^ ext the reduc­
tion obtained from (R by replacing every VQR in it by some variable x. Let
<R*x^: C -- »• ... -- >■ D' be (R ^ where x is everywhere replaced by P. So now
we have

B = — V Ql Rr - ... — VQjPt —

and

D ' E ---P ---- . . . ---- P ---- .

Furthermore, we note that the internal reduction part of (R consists of

"unbalancing" reductions P ■ ■-» Q. and P ■-» R. for i = 1,...,£. So by
CL i CL 1
CR for CL, we can find common CL-reducts p. -- » S. « --- R. (i = 1,...,£) .
i l l
Now let

B' = — P S 1S1 — ••• — VSlSl —

and

D = ___ Si — ... — st

then we have
 223

Likewise for CL ® . Note that we proved more than necessary: instead

of B — D even B — D - (This is only non-trivial for CL ©
since there PP ^ does not hold.)

For X^-calculus instead of CL, the proof is complicated by the fact

that B may contain nested underlining (i.e. the descendants of PPP c a may
be substituted in each other). The complications can be circumvented, how­
ever, by means of Lemma I.4.3.7, which says that in a B-development no such
nestings can occur. So if A -— » B is a development, the V q .R. (i = 1,.. .,£)
p i i
are disjoint; and then the above proof for CL carries over without change.
I.e., we have

Furthermore, it is not hard to see that here B — » B' and C — » D are again
developments. Using this, it is routine to prove that a V - s t e p can be
"pushed through" an arbitrary B-reduction, being a sequence of B-develop-
ments, as suggested by the following figure:

dev
224

The closure of this diagram is ensured by the fact that the "dev-steps" do
not split, in their propagation to the right. □

The next theorem is a slight generalization of Theorem 1.4 in

MITSCHKE [77].

3.2. DEFINITION. Let E be some reduction system, and let P be an n-ary

predicate on Ter(E). Then
(i) P is c lo s e d u n d er (E-) r e d u c t io n if: whenever A. — » A.' (i = l,...,n)
l l
then P (A , ...,A ) =» P (A1, ...,A ') .
I n I n
(ii) P is c lo s e d u n d er s u b s t it u t io n if:

P(A.,...,A ) => P(A°,...,Aa)

I n I n

where A? denotes [x := B] A . , the result of some substitution into A.

i i l

3.3. THEOREM (G. Mitschke) ('R e d u c tio n b y cases', f i r s t v e r s i o n ) .

L e t XV (o r CllD) be th e r e d u c t io n sy ste m o b ta in e d by a d d in g to A (CL) a c o n ­
s t a n t V and r u l e s ( f o r n,k>l):

Pa ....A -- *■ M. if P (A , ...,A )
1 n 1 1 1 n

PA.... A ► M. if P. (A. ,...,A )

I n k k i n

where the M. are closed XV (or CL$)-terms and the P. (i = l,...,k) are n-
i i
ary predicates on T e r(X V ) (resp. Ter(CLP)) satisfying:
(i) the P^ are p a ir w is e d i s j o i n t ,
(ii) the P^ are c lo s e d under r e d u c t io n (including ^-reduction)
(iii) the P. are c lo s e d u n d er s u b s t it u t io n (in case of X V ) .
i
Then XV(CL,V) |= CR.

PROOF. As in MITSCHKE [77], we can prove by inspection of cases that

-------- * ------- ^ 1 -------- >ii -------- 1

V I 3 Bi = 1
i
III

V 6
i 1 1
//
^1

\ f = ^ * L . p- ^ J
1
1
1
1
1

TT_>
(1) (2) (3) (4)
 225

(Here --- ► is 0 or 1 step; i.e. the reflexive closure of ►.) So V- , 3-

reductions are self-commuting and commute with each other (see Def.I.5.2) ;
hence by the Lemma of Hindley-Rosen (1.5.7.(4)) CR follows for XV. Likewise
for CliV. n

3.3.1. REMARK, (i) In the formulation of MITSCHKE [77], n = k = 2 and the

conditions on P. are more restrictive (the A. have to be closed).
i i
(ii) For some applications of the theorem, see MITSCHKE [77]. One of them
is:

X © #AB -- y K if A,B are closed normal

forms and A = B
KI " " and A ^ B

is CR. This is 'Church's 6-reduction', see also 1.15.(4).

(iii) Also 'Church's generalized 6-rules' (as in 1.17) fall under the scope
of this theorem.

We will now give a strengthening of Mitschke's theorem, both for use

in the sequel and for its own interest.

3.4. THEOREM. ('Reduction by cases', second version.)

Let XV (or ChV) be as in the previous theorem, where M_^ is replaced by
M. (A„,. ..,A ); i.e. the M. may contain the metavariables A now.
i 1 n + i
Then XV(C1,V) |= CR (the CR property in the strong version as e.g.
in Theorem 1.6.9).

PROOF. The proof of 3.3 does not carry over to the present case, since the
assertions expressed in the diagrams (1), (3) there are no longer true
((2) and (4) stay true, as we will see), since now also ^-reductions may
have multiplicative effect. XV(CIjV) is not a CRS, but resembles one in the
following sense. Let At) (and likewise CI$; we will refer only to A in the
remainder of this proof) be A-calculus augmented by constants V,V ,. m.
and miles

-- ► M (A ,...,A )
1 1 n

— V A1
226

V is now an inert constant. Then, obviously, xt) is a regular CRS and even a
definable extension of A-calculus. Hence X& |= FD, CR+ as we proved in
Chapter I (Theorems 1.4.1.11 and 1.6.9) using the method of developments,
decreasing weights, and reduction diagrams.
Now, in order to make the resemblance between XV and )3 closer, let us
attach a subscript i to V in each subterm Va . .. .A where P(A ,...,A ). Note
I n i n
that these subscripts are 'persistent' during a reduction, due to the re­
quirements (i) , (ii) , (iii) in the theorem. (The resemblance is not com­
plete since in XV we may have e.g.
(Ax.— xA— xB— )V >• — l^A— P 2B— if P 1 (A) and P2 (B) hold.)
Now the point is that all the definitions (elementary diagram, under­
lining, development, weights) and theorems there-about used in proving
Al5 \= FD, CR+ , carry over without effort to XV. For, a development in XV
is in fact nothing else than a development in Al5. To be more precise: let
M e Ter (At?) and underline some 3-redexes and "V."-redexes. Let be some
i
development of these underlined redexes. Then & is also a development of
M e Ter(A$) , but for one thing: in & a V may become a V (see the example
above) which is of course not possible in the regular CRS A^. In completing
a diagram V these subscripts, which appear out of the blue, do not bother
us however; ignoring them the whole diagram construction can be thought of
as taking place in A^, so it terminates indeed. So now we have CR+ for
A2A-developments; to obtain CR+ for arbitrary reductions is then a small
step. □

3.4.1. REMARK, (i) Note that the predicate P(A,B) <=> A = B is not closed
under reduction. Otherwise the previous theorem would yield that
A © (Da b -- ► A if A = B), i.e. A © #, , was CR.
h
(ii) An example: E = A © f V lA -- »■ A is CR, by the previous theorem
#KA -- ► AA
where P^(A^,A2) <=* A^ = I and P2 (A^,A2) <=* A^ = K clearly satisfy the three
requirements. However, E is also a regular CRS, so this application is only
 227

illustrative and not essential.

(iii) The same as in (ii) can be said for Aczel's 'Definition by cases', as
in Example 1.15.(3).
(iv) An inspection of the proof shows that instad of A, CL any definable
extension of A-calculus (or substructure thereof) can be taken. We expect
moreover that the theorem holds for an arbitrary regular CRS E instaead of
A, CL, but did not v;ork out the details. (For regular TRS's E it is easy.)
We will now answer several of the questions posed at the beginning of
this section, in the following table, and give the proofs afterwards. (We
will only mention A, but everything holds for CL as well.)

consis­ conserva­
CR UN NF
tency tivity

A © SP - + + ? -

A © R ZZ -- ► Z - + + + -
h
A © V ZZ -- >■ E - + + + -
s
A © V, ZZ — ► Ez + + + +
k

3.5. Conservativity and consistency. The consistency of the CRS's is an

immediate corollary of the conservativity of these extensions over A; see
1.5.10.
To establish the conservativity of A © SP is a difficult matter; this
is done in DE VRIJER [80]. The consistency alone can also be proved by
elegant model theoretic means as in DE VRIJER [80], using the Graph Model
P oj; or in SCOTT [77], using an even faster construction.
For the remaining three CRS's the conservativity over A is easily
established:

3.5.1. THEOREM. A © V ,V, ,V, a r e c o n s e r v a t i v e o v e r A.

------- s k h

PROOF. Let V b e V ,V. ,V. , and now consider next to A © V. the CRS A © V * f
----- ^ s k h
where V is a new constant with the reduction rule

P
sV2— E
' re sP- PkZ l Z2 E
Z1
' re sp ‘ PhZ l Z2 — ^ V
228

So A © V is a regular CRS, hence CR, and hence (see 1.5.11) conservative

over A. That is, given a conversion T* in A © V * between A-terms A,B, we
can find a common 3-reduct C:

Now if T is a conversion between A,B e Ter(A) in A © V, then after re­

placing each V by V * we have a conversion T as above in A © V * . Hence the
result follows. □

3.5.1.1. REMARK. The replacement of V by V , i.e. dropping the non-left-

linearity of the P-rule, yields a regular CRS in the proof above. Such an
attempt to "regularization" fails however for A © SP = A © ; for
consider A © (V* ,1)^,1) and rules

V A V zo V Z. (i = 0,1)

V ( V o ^ l V 0"

Then the rules are left-linear indeed, but they remain ambiguous. Moreover
they are inconsistent:

x = (V*Ax) = V^(V*(Vq (V*Ax )) (V*By))) = V^(V*By) = y.

This may illustrate the difficulty of the syntactical treatment of A © SP.

3.6. The Normal Form property (NF). The failure of CR for A © SP,
entails also the failure of NF (see Def.I.5.6) for the first three CRS's,
as we shall show; surprisingly, for A © V we do have NF.

3.6.1. THEOREM. A © V ,fl,SP M NF.

------- s h

PROOF. For V, . Let □,□',□" be the terms CA, E(CA), C(E(CA)) as in the CR-
----- h
counterexample in 1.2.4. So □ — » and □' □". Let
 229

<M> := Az.zM and KM := Az.M (zjFV(Ml). . (For CL, <M> := -SI (ACm I as is seen
using I.2.5.1.) Now consider the reductions:

V. <□><□> (Kl) — ^ <□> (KI) -- y Kin -- ► I.

V, <□' ><□"> (KE) .

h

Here the last term cannot reduce to the normal form I = Ax.x since o' ^ .
Hence NF fails.

F o r V . Let be as in the CR-counterexample for A © V in 1.2.3. Con-

s s
sider:

iV □□ --- y E, a normal form

s

V
I and now V / ■» E since □' Y □ ".

F o r SP. Analogous to the case of V^z

t?(t?0<n>) (PjL<n>) (Ki) — » I

V (Vq <o 1> (^1<n,,> (Ki)

3.6.2. -------
THEOREM. A © V,
k 1\= NF.

PROOF. Let N be a normal form in A © and suppose M is convertible to N.

So suppose there is a conversion N = N_ — N. — ... — N = M where each
— is y or + . We have to prove M — » N. Suppose M -f— » N, and let
N, . be the first term in the conversion such that N, , -/— » N. Then we
k+1 k+1
have the situation
 230

N N = M.
V k+1 m

For, the step N^ — Nk+i in the conversion cannot be N^ * Nk+l since t*1en
also N — » n , contrary to the assumption; so N — > N . Moreover, this
K+1 K K “r 1
cannot be a 3-step by Lemma 3.1.
Applying Postponement of P-steps in — » N (Prop.1.2.7) and again
Lemma 3.1, we have:

k+1

Now, since N is a normal form and L — » N consists of V ^ - s t e p s , it is easy

to see that L cannot contain 3-redexes. (Note that for V the proof would
s
break down at this point; for even earlier, since then PP^p fails.)
Hence L H P . Since P-reductions alone are CR (by Newman's Lemma
1.5.7.(1): ^-reductions have the WCR-property and SN is obvious), we have
therefore:

N 0 N
 231

(the bottom ^-reduction being 0 because N is a normal form)

But this contradicts our assumption N^+ ^ -f-— » N. Hence N = M — » N,
m
i.e. NF holds. □

3.7. The Unicity of Normal forms (UN, see Def.I.5.6).

That A © [= UN follows immediately by the previous theorem and the fol-
lowing general fact, whose proof is trivial:

3.7.1. PROPOSITION. For all ARS's : NF => UN. f|

For the CRS's A © ^he ProPertY UN turns out to hold also, but
the proof is more complicated. For A © SP the question is open; we conjec­
ture that A © SP |= UN.

3.7.2. THEOREM. A © V ,V. 1= UN.

------- s h 1

PROOF. The proof is based on an idea of R. de Vrijer and an application of

Theorem 3.4.
Let E be A © V, ZZ -»■ Z. (The proof for V is similar to the one for V. .
h s h
For V the proof works also, by the way.) Let E be A ® a constant V and
the rule

P*AB -- ► A iff (J)(A) =£ 4>(B)

where 4>: Ter (A©#*) -- ► Ter(A©P) is the operation of erasing every *, and
=£ denotes convertibility in E. (E.g.

V* I — »■ V*II since Vll = I

but not

V*IK -- *‘I since I ^ K.)

To simplify notation, we will suppress <J> from now on.

•k
We claim that the predicate P(A,B) A = B is closed under E -re­
duction and under substitution. The closure under substitution is trivial.
To check the closure under reduction: let

A,B e Ter(A©P*) , A = B and A --- ► A 1.

L E*
232

So to prove is A' = B. The only noteworthy case is that A -- »■ A is a

* k
V -step: A = (C[fl PO] y* (C[p] = A', where it is given that P Q- (*)
So we have

A' = C[P] <---- A = C[P*PO] AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA B

p* ~ conversion in E

and using (*) we can obtain from this:

A' = <C[P] «--- <C[£>PP] aaaa A = (C[PPQ~I aaaaaa B,

E E

which is a E-conversion between A',B. This proves the claim. Hence by

* i
Theorem 3.4, E f= CR.
Now suppose UN fails for E. I.e. there are normal forms N^, N^ such
that N £ N2 but N^ = N2 . Suppose N ^ , N2 are moreover chosen such that
INi| + |N2 ! (the sum of the lengths) is minimal.
(**) Then N^, N2 contain no subterm Va b such that A =^. B. For, suppose say
N^ contains such a #AB. Then obviously A,B are in normal form (since N^ is),
A ^ B (since N^ contains no P-redex) and |A| + |b | < ]N^|. This would con­
tradict the minimality of N^, N^.
Since N^ = ^ we have a E-conversion T : N^ aaaa N2 . After replacing
•
j
J* ^ ^ ^ ^
each V by V , this yields a E -conversion T : N a a a a n . Now N and N
* * ^
are also E -normal forms; that there are no V -redexes was remarked in
. . * i * i
(**). Moreover, N^ f N^ since N^ t N2 ‘
So E Y UN. But this contradicts our earlier remark that E* |= CR
(since CR => UN) . Hence E f= UN. □

4. SOME POSITIVE CR-RESULTS FOR NON-LEFT-LINEAR CRS's

If E is a non-left-linear, but strongly normalizing CRS, then CR holds

(provided E |= WCR) by Newman's Lemma. However, consider the TRS E with
constants u , V and rules mZ — »■ ZZ and V Z Z -- >- Z. Then E Y SN? mm or
m(Pmm) reduce to themselves. Yet E seems clearly CR; but even for this
simple TRS the proof is problematic.
In this subsection we give some positive information on the CR-property
for non-left-linear CRS's; this will also cast more light on the previous
CR-counterexamples. One of these results (5.6 (iii) and 5.7 (i)) answers a
question (or rather, suggestion) in O'DONNELL [77] ('Further Research'
 233

p.103, (2)(b).)

4.1. DEFINITION. Let E be a CRS and let M e Ter(E) . Then CR(M), "M is CR",
iff Va ,B3C

M A

-s*
B C

(So CR(M) says that the CR-property holds locally, at M.)

4.2. NOTATION. Let A, be the CRS with constants V, ,E and rules

-------- k k
V. ZZ -- ► Ez. Likewise A has the constants V ,E and the rule V ZZ — + E;
k s s s
and A, has the constant V. and the rule V. ZZ -- »- Z. (Sometimes we will
h h h
revert to our previous 'abus de language' of writing £ © (i = k,s,h)
where E © A. is meant.)
i

4.3. ----
DEFINITION.
— ------ Let E be a CRS and consider E © A.i where i = h,k,s.
(i) A V - p r e r e d e x R^ is a E © A^-term of the form of V AB. A c h a i n o f V -
preredexes (of length n), or P-chain, in a term M is a sequence

M 2 rd * % ? Rd ? ••• ? Rin)

for some n.
(ii) |MID := the maximal length of chains of P-preredexes in M.
IIMil^ := maxflNl^ | M — » n }; possibly IIMIID = 00. Here — >■ is reduction in
E © A. . We call IIMil the 'V-norm' of M.
l D

4.3.1. EXAMPLE. In CL © A , let M, = W ( V I I ) ( V ( V l l ) l ) and M_ = CA as in the

------- l 1 2
CR-counterexample for CL © A^ above.
Then |M ]D = 2, IIm ^ = 3, Im ^ = 1, and Hm ^ = ».

4.3.2. REMARK, (i) M — » N => II Mil > II Nild .

(ii) If IIMilD is finite, then: M — » <£[PPQ~! *> Ap H HQllp < Um II^.

4.4. THEOREM. Let l be a regular TRS. Then:

(i) for all M e Ter(E © A ) , HMilq < 00 => CR(M)
(ii) likewise for E © A .
s
234

PROOF. (i) The proof is by induction on IIm II^.

The basis step, IIMil = 0 => CR(M) , follows easily from £ |= CR.
Induction step. Induction hypothesis: IIm B -< n => CR(M) .
Now let M be a term such that Hm IId = n+1.
Let two reductions of M, and (R , be given; see figure.

M"
-*•*1

Suppose we have already found a common reduct N' of N and M' . If the next
step in , M' — >■ M" / is a ^-reduction step, we can find a common reduct
of N' and M" by Lemma 3.1.
The other case is as in the next figure: M' — »■ M" is a P^-step. BY
Proposition 1.2.7(ii), which evidently holds also with A replaced by £ (it
is easy to verify that an analogon of Cor.1.6.13 as used there, holds for
CRS's), we can postpone the P-steps in M ’ — » N*.

M' <C[P. PP] E C[EP1

k

r
N

Now underline the P^-redex which is contracted in the step M* -- > M " ,
and also the descendants of that redex in the reduction M* — » L — » L ' .
(Since this is a £-reduction, this makes sense: the concept 'descendant'
is defined for regular CRS's. Underline moreover the contractum EP in M"
and all its descendants in M" -- »- L"; here L' and L" are found as in the
proof of Lemma 3.1. So the £-reduction steps in L — » L' take place inside
underlined subterms, and we have:
 235

L = €lVP1Q 1,.
m m

L ’ S <E[PR R, ,....,PR R 1
1 1 m m

U
,5
L" = <C[ER , ...

1
—1
J?
for some m-ary context ®[,...,] and terms as displayed. (An m-ary context
is a context having m 'holes’, e.g. oS(Tnn) is a ternary context.)
Now consider in L all P-preredexes (underlined or not) which are going
to be contracted in the reduction L — » N * . To be precise: the P-preredexes
having a descendant which is contracted in L — » N ' . (In fact, we have not
defined 'descendants' for irregular CRS's ; but we can use for the purpose
of this proof the following definition.
Let A* be the regular CRS with constants P , E and the rule P Z Z — > Ez .
K ^ K Jv 1 Z 1
Then for Z © A^. descendants are defined; and now the concept of descendants
in Z © A^ is induced in the obvious way.)
We will mark those P-preredexes, which will be contracted in L — » N ' ,
by an underlining --- ---- . Next, consider the underlined P-preredexes (by
as well as ----._) which are maximal w.r.t. c. Then

L = C'[PU1V 1,...,PU£V£_I

for some 1-ary context C' ; h e r e --- is ____ or -— — or ------

Note that the -- underlined P-preredexes are pairwise disjoint, trivially.
Since L — » L ’ is a Z-reduction taking place inside ___-underlined P-prere-
dexes and in L' — » L" only ___-underlined P-redexes are contracted, and
s i n c e --- covers _____ , the context <£'[,...,1 remains unchanged in L".
Therefore we can write
1
-1

L = c'CDj/. where D . = Pu.v.,

1 3 3
1
-'

L" S C ’[F ,. for some

i
—i
-N>

for some (j =
Q

N* = CCD',.

Hence it is sufficient to prove that D! F. (j = 1,...,£). We may suppose

1 + D
that the descendants of the D_. (j = 1 / .. .,£) are the last ones to be con­
tracted in L — » N ' . (The proof is easy: replace if necessary the
236

reduction D. = Vu .V . -- >- Pw.W. -- > Ew . -- >■ Ew! = D! by the reduction

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Pu.V. -- »• Pw.W. — #W!w! -- »- Ew! = D!, etc.) This is not an essential step,
33 33 33 3 3
however.
Now, according to the relative position in D^ of the ___ and un­
derlining, we distinguish the following cases.

CASE 1. D. E Vp .O .. So the reductions

------ 3 ^ 3^3

L -- » L"

N'

contain the following reductions of :

L ^ D. E VP O -r^> VR.R. --n--> Er . E F. c L"

_
~ 3. r: v
z 3 3 V j j -
v
n!
V L'
Vss

lp
D! E Es C N*
3 ~

Since llp^ll^ < n by Remark 4.3.2, the induction hypothesis yields a common
reduct of S and R. as follows:
1

Hence also D! = Es and F. = Er . have a common reduct.

3 i 3

CASE 2. D. E Vp .O .? P. and Q. may contain . Now we have the situation:

------ 3 3 3 3 3

L p D. E Vp .O. Vr .R . r r Er . E F. c L"
j"j z 3 3 V 3 3 ~
ni
V
L'
N* =>D! E VSS1
~ 3
 237

Again, since the P-norms of the involved terms are < n, we can construct
by the induction hypothesis a common reduct T. as follows:

Hence D! = VSS ' — » V T .T . ► Et . and F . E ER. — » Et ..

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

CASE 3. D.3 = V u .V.; Pu.V. is not -underlined, but U .,V. may contain
------
sJL3 3 3 - 3 3 --
(Note that PlhV_. is not a proper subterm of a for some i, by the
maximality condition for the D..) So we have the following situation:

L ^ D. E Pu.V. -» Vu '.V' E F c L" .

~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~
V

Vss

N' ^ D! E ES.
~ 3

Now we can find again a common reduct T .:

238

Hence F. = P u ’
.V! — » Pr.T. — > ET. and D ! = Es — » Et .. So in all three
3 3 3 33 3 3 3
cases we have F_. + D_! (j = 1,...,£); hence L" 4* N'.
(ii) For E © the proof is entirely similar to (i). □

4.5. REMARK: Note that indeed the terms in the previous CR-counterexamples
have an infinite P-norm.

4.6. REMARK. In fact we have proved the following stronger proposition, as

follows easily by inspection of the proof of Theorem 4.4:

4.6.1. PROPOSITION. Let l be a regular TRS and let M e Ter(£©A.) (i = k,s)

be such that for all N,A,B: M — » N 2 VAB implies CR(A) ,CR(B) . Then CR(M) .

4.7. REMARK, (i) Let £ be CL extended with V , E and the reduction rule:
p^MM »- E m if M is strongly normalizing (SN) , w.r.t. CL - as well as
P-reduction. Then £ f= CR.
To see this, note that M e SN =» CR(M) by Newman’s Lemma; then the
proof of Theorem 4.4 applies without change. Likewise for V .
s
(ii) A similar proposition holds when the restriction in (i) on M is re­
placed by:
"if M does not contain the constant V " (resp. V ) . For, then we have CR(M)
k ' s
at once, since CL |= CR.

In order to state the following corollary of Theorem 4.4, first a

definition.

4.8. DEFINITION, (i) If H e Mter(E), then d(H) (the depth of H) is the

maximal length of branches of t (H), the term formation tree of H as in 1.7.
(Par abus de langage, we will write d(H) = d(xH).) E.g.

d(Sz z z ) = dr ) = 1
12 3 / j'v
Z1 Z2 Z3
and
d ( Z Z (Z Z )) = d( Z )= 2.
1 3 2 3 / \
Z3 Z2
 239

(ii) Call a reduction rule H »■ H* diminishing if d(H) > d(H’) and call
the CRS E diminishing if all its reduction rules are.

4 .9. COROLLARY of Theorem 4.4.

Let £ be a diminishing regular TRS. Then E © A (= CR (i = k,s) .

PROOF. Note that the rules for P. (i = k,s) are diminishing:

d( V. ) d( E ) and d( V ) > d(E) .

z^ \ / S\
z z
z

Hence E © A. (i = k,s) is diminishing. Therefore, no M e Ter(E©A ) can have

i i
an infinite P-norm. □

4.10. EXAMPLES. (i) Let E have constants oj, V , E and the rules mZ -- > ZZ
and VZZ --- >■ EZ. Then E f= CR.
(ii) Let CL have constants K, S and rules

KZ1Z2 — * Z 1 and S Z1Z2Z3

* — " V 3Z2Z3 -

Then CL* © Ai |= CR (i = k,s) .

(iii) Let CL** have constants K, S , 0 and rules

*
KZlz2 — > zi and 5 ( < 1 W 3 - > Z 1Z3 (Z2Z3K

Then CL © A |= CR (i = k,s) .

( 2)
4.11. DEFINITION. Let E be a regular TRS. Then E © A_; (i = k,s,h) will
denote the substructure of E 6 A^ where every is the head of a P-prere-
dex (i.e. every P^ has two arguments).
E.g. if E is CL, then SK(VJJ) and V(V11SK)KK are E © A - t e r m s , but
SK(V1) or SKV are not.
(Alternative, inductive definition of T = Ter(E©AJ:
(1) Ter (E) c T, (2) A,B e T => AB, PAB e T.)

4.12. COROLLARY of Theorem 4.4.

Let I be a regular TRS. Then E © A^2^ |= CR (i = k,s) .
240

(2)
PROOF. If M -- »- N for M,N e Ter(E©A_/ ) (i = k,s) , then IIm II^ > IIn II^ as one
easily verifies. Hence |m |d = IIm II^ < 00. □

4.13. REMARK. Consider a regular TRS as in HUET [78], where a TRS is written
in 1function .notation'; e.g. instead of our Pz^Z2 -- the notation in
HUET [78] would read P(Z ,Z ) -- »- Z . Now, writing for the TRS having
1 2. L K
as only rule P, (Z,Z) -- * E(Z) and A for the TRS with the rule V (Z,Z)-> E,
k s s
Corollary 4.12 is equivalent to the proposition that for every regular TRS
E^ as in HUET [78], we have E^ © A^ (= CR (i = k/s) . (Below we will general­
ize Corollary 4.12 to the case i = h.)
This might seem somewhat paradoxical in view of e.g. CL © A Y
t
the explanation is that the 'function-notation' version (CL © A ) cannot
f f k f
be written as a 'direct sum' CL © A^. See HUET [78], who gives as CL :

A(A(A(S,Z1) ,z2) ,z3) — >■ A(A(zlfz3) , A(z2 ,z3))

A(A(/C,zl) ,z2) — ► z 1

where A stands for application. Now (CL©Ak )f would be the TRS having the
two preceding rules plus A(A(P,Z),Z) — ^ E (Z).

We will now generalize some of the preceding results to A^ and SP. This
will be done via a lemma which may be of independent interest.

5. THE 'BLACK BOX' LEMMA

Consider an extension E of CL by some new constants and some new re­

duction rules. The rules need not to be regular, and may be quite 'patho­
logical'. Now consider a E-term M = (C[n^ ,. ..,nn ] where <£[,...,] is an
n-ary CL-context (i.e. a CL-term with n 'holes') and where the □
(i = l,...,n) are E-terms, possibly containing new constants. Suppose we
are not interested in the precise content of the (so they are 'black
boxes'), but know already that CR(ct) and moreover, suppose that a black
box can only be "opened" (and hence interact with its context) when its
content is a CL-term (not containing new constants).
Then, we claim, CR(M) holds.
A refinement, which we will prove and use below, of this claim is
that a black box, when opened, may yield a CL-context of other black boxes -
but only when the latter are of lesser 'order' (a natural number) than the
 241

former.

5.1. DEFINITION, (i) CLO is an extension of CL with a set of constants

{□?■ | n,i e IN}; here n is called the ’order' of (and i can be thought
of as the ’internal state' of nn).
1
(ii) Next to CL-reduction we have the following kinds of reduction:
(a) □: for some n,m,i,j; it is required that n > m.
l
(b) nE r “l for some n,i,k,m^,j^,..., n ^ , . Here C[,...,]
T - ®Cnj l'*' '1' k
is a k-ary CL-context. It is required that m^, .
“k " n -
A step of kind (a) is called 'internal'; furthermore we say that after
a (b)-step the black box is 'opened'. As always, reduction steps of any
kind may occur in an arbitrary context, i.e. A B => <C[A] <E[B].
Sometimes we will omit the subscript in ►.
(iii) Reduction of kind (a), (b) is required to be CR: internal reduction
1 1
must satisfy WCR ' , i.e.:

and furthermore we require

mi \
1 = M

CL(a)(b)

Pi P£
(T'[o. 1 = p
h
l hl
242

mi “k
.....\ ism

CL(a) (b)

s/CL(a) (b)
Pi pp ^ q l
<C"[0 , . . . , 0 q Ss 1 = Q
hi hl

(iv) CLn11 is the restriction of CIO to terms containing only constants n™

where m < n. So CLn^ = CL. If M.N e Ter (CLn11) and M -- ;— ■ ■ .» N. we write
CL(a)(b)
M -- ► N and call M an — ► -redex. (Warning: -- > • 4 --- ► )
n n ------- n r n
(v) M -- ► N => (C[M] -- ► (C[n 1 , where (CT ] is now a CLn-context. (Note that
n n
C[M] will be in general not an —j^>-redex, which is e Ter (CLn ) .)

5.2. LEMMA. Let CLn be an extension of CL as in the preceding definition.

Then CLn |= CR.

PROOF. We will prove by induction on n that has the CR-property. Then

obviously arbitrary CL(a) (b)-reduction (= U — ■*-) is also CR.
neM n
0 1
Basis. Follows since CLn = CL f= CR.

Induction step. Induction hypothesis:

A B

n n

C D
n

Now consider CLn-terms a ,B,C such that A -- -r* B, A --- r* C. These 'steps'
n+1 ^ ^ n+1
consist in fact of CL-steps, — * -steps, and — —-- >■ -steps (m<n) .
We will now examine the elementary diagrams which arise when these steps
are 'confronted'. (We will not explicitly consider the trivial cases in
which the two confronted redexes are disjoint.)

CASE I . A CL-step versus a CL-step. Trivial.

 243

CASE II. An (a)(b)-step versus an (a)(b)-step. There are three subcases.

(1) (a) vs. (a) :

( 2) □ . IDJ — > i
_____ — >
n

(a) n (b) n
g
=<—

r 'IL— —
□. m < n P
3

Here P, Q, M are as in the diagrams in Def.5.1.

CASE III. An — - step versus an -- ► - step. This case is covered by the

induction hypothesis: see the. diagram there.

CASE IV. An — *■ - step versus an — a-— ^ ^ _step (m<n) .

------- n m
(1). If m < n, then the latter step is also an — ^ - step and we are in
the preceding case. So we have then

(2). If m = n, these two steps involve disjoint redexes, since an — -

n
redex (a CLn -term) cannot contain an " -- > - redex", (i.e. a constant
n
ct) by definition. So we have
244

CASE V. A CL-step versus an — — ► - step (m<n) . This case is easily

------ m _
analyzed; the elementary diagrams which arise are of the form:

(Here — -— »• is an S-,K~, or I-step.)

CL
CASE VI. A CL-step versus an - step.
Three subcases arise. Let R be the CL-redex and R* the — ■+ - redex.
n
(1) R n R* = 0 : trivial
(2) R c R'. Then R is also a - redex. Hence, by the induction hypothesis

CL

(3) If R £ R*, we distinguisl

(i) R = SABC, R' = Sab
(ii) " R* = Sa
(iii) " R' £ A
(iv) " R' c B
(v) rr R' c C
(vi) r = /Ca b , R' = Ka
ii R' £ A
(vii)
(viii) " R' £ B
(ix) R = lA , R' £ A.
 245

We consider the two most noteworthy cases: (i) and (v).

(i) (v)

The other seven cases are even simpler: they involve no splitting of steps.
The conclusion is that the CL-steps (in fact only the .S-steps) are the
only ones who have the power to split the other arrow in an elementary
diagram. So by a routine argument and an appeal on the lemma of Hindley-
Rosen (1.5.7), reductions involving CL-, --► -, -- ► (m<n)-steps are CR.
n m
I .e . we have proved

n+1
n+1 n+1

n+1

Hence CLD f= CR. □

5.3. REMARK. It is not hard to check that the 'black box' lemma 5.2 also
holds for X instead of CL, or for other regular CRS's in general.

5.4. EXAMPLE, (i) A simple application of the black box lemma for X is the
well-known result (obtained by MITSCHKE in an unpublished note and indepen­
dently by us) that X © (fl +■ M) \= CR, where £3 = (Xx.xx) (Xx.xx) and M is an
arbitrary fixed term. (Cf. BAETEN-BOERENBOOM [78]) (Just put SI in a box,
which can only be opened after its reduction to M; the CR-requirements for
the boxes hold trivially.) This example is only meant as an illustration,
since it is easy to give a more straightforward CR-proof.

Before stating some corollaries of Lemma 5.2, some notation:

246

(2)
5.5. NOTATION and DEFINITION, (i) CL © is already defined in 4.11. A
notational variant CL © V (,) is obtained by defining the set T of terms
h
inductively as follows:
(1) T,K,S e T, (2) A,B e T => AB, V. (A,B) e T. Next to CL-reduction there
h
is the rule V. (A,A) -»• A.
Cl h
(ii) A ffi V is the substructure of A ® where in every one requires
A,B to be closed. So the set T of terms is defined by
cl
(1) x. e T (2) A,B e T => AB, Ax.A e T (3) A,B e T and closed => V AB e T.
1 cl cl ^
(Notational variant: V, (A,B) instead of V, AB.)
h h
(iii) A © (if .. then .. else ..), or its notational variant A © B( , , ),
and A © 8 are already defined in 1.2.11.(v) (3). Likewise for CL.
o1 cl
(iv) Analogous to A © P we define A © B

Now we have the following situation:

5.6. THEOREM,
(i) CL © ft( , ) f= CR
h
(ii) X e V? { , ) (= CR
h
(iii) CL © 8( , , ) f= CR
(iv) A ® BC l ( , , ) f= CR.

(2)
PROOF, (i) Consider CL © V ( , ) or its notational equivalent CL ©
(2) ** **
Let M e Ter (CL © V^ ) and put the maximal subterms of the form V&B (a
maximal P-preredex) in boxes and let n = |p a b !d (see Def.4.3) be the order
of such a box JPa b Jn . A box is opened when \V&B |n -- » [VCC [ -- >■ C. Ob­
viously |clD < n, i.e. C is a CL-context possibly containing boxes of
order < n. We have to prove the CR-requirements for the boxes, as stated
in Def.5.1.(iii). This will be done by induction on the order n.

Basis. n = 1: follows by a simple argument from CL |= CR, since then A,B

in |V&B 1 are CL-terms.

(2)
Induction step. Induction hypothesis: the restriction E of CL © V. to
n h
terms M such that |MI < n (cf. CLn in Def.5.1), is CR.
Now let M contain a IVa b Irl. Then CR(^AB) by the same argument as used
for the basis step, now using f= CR and noting that A,B e Ter(E^) .
Hence all the boxes are CR. The remainder of the proof follows by
analogy from the proof of the black box lemma,
cl
(ii) As (i). That in V, AB the terms A,B must be closed, is essential
h
(for this method of proof); otherwise by substitution the P-norm (i.e. the
 247

order of the 'black boxes') could increase, as is indeed the case in the
previous CR-counterexamples. (See also Remark 5.7.)
(iii) Mutatis mutandis (e.g. the definition of | I_ instead of | | ) the
B D
proof is similar to that of (i) . The ambiguity involved in the reductions
B± AA -»• A (by two clauses of the definition of the rules for B) is harm­
less .
(iv) As (iii) . f]

5.7. REMARK, (i) Theorem 5.6 holds for any regular CRS instead of X, CL.
(ii) We expect that analogous results can be given for SP instead of
(iii) Note the correspondence between in CL and in X. Indeed, if
t (or t ') is the translation from X to CL as in 1.2. then
t (. . ...) = — V ^ (t A) (tB) — . This is not the case for V AB where A,B
h n h
are open; cf. our previous CR-counterexample t (CA) for CL © V. .
cl h
(iv) Warning: X © f= CR does not mean that X © (P^^ A ^ A i-s c^-osec^
|= CR. For, the previous CR-counterexample is also a CR-counterexample for
the latter restricted system: the two P-contractions in that counterexample,
V(CA) (CA) ■+ CA, involved closed terms.
(v) We expect that Theorem 5.6 can be sharpened to yield a result analogous
to Theorem 4.4.

5.8. REMARK. The Fixed Point Theorem (cf.I.1.11) for X and CL can be stated
in the following equivalent ways:
(FP) VF 3X X — » FX
(FP') V<C[ ] 3X X — » <C[x]
Note that for the extensions of X and CL in Theorem 5.6, (FP) stays valid,
but (FP*) fails. (E.g. in CL© , ), consider <E[ ] = and note
that |M|p cannot increase in a reduction of M.)
In fact, the failure of(FP') is due to the failure of 'Combinatory
Completeness' (cf. 1.1.10 and 1.2.5.3? this property can be phrased as:
(CC) V(D[ , ..., ] 3C Cx^ ...x^ — » (C[x1, ...,xn J) since CC => (FP <=> FP ') , as
one easily verifies.

5.9. REMARK. For X © SP (typed X-calculus plus Surjective Pairing), CR is

proved in POTTINGER [79]
 249

CHAPTER IV

XBri-CALCULUS

In this chapter we will derive the main syntactical theorems for ABn"
calculus. As it turns out, the addition of the so simple n-reduction rule
complicates syntactical matters considerably. After the Church-Rosser
theorem, which is easily obtained from that for AB and is presented via
Bn~reduction diagrams, we introduce A-residuals, which have a more pleasant
behaviour than the ordinary residuals in Bn~reductions. For instance, we
will show that the Parallel Moves Lemma fails for residuals, but holds for
A-residuals. We make an essential use of A-residuals and the PM Lemma in
this chapter.
By the same method as used for AB in Section 1.9, the Standardization
Theorem for ABn is proved. Then the Normalization Theorem and Quasi-normali­
zation Theorem are proved for ABn. These last two theorems require an extra­
ordinary long proof, compared to the AB-case; nevertheless we felt the ef­
fort was worthwhile since firstly the Normalization Theorem is a very
'natural' theorem, and secondly since some of the lemma's used in the proof,
seem to be of independent interest.
This chapter was inspired by work of R. Hindley. It answers some open
problems mentioned in HINDLEY [78], namely whether the Standardization
Theorem (there called: Strong Standardization) and the (Quasi-) Normaliza­
tion theorem hold for ABn.

1. THE CHURCH-ROSSER THEOREM FOR ABr)"CALCULUS

1.1. DEFINITION. Let the set of A-terms, Ter(A), as in Def. 1.1.1. be given.
In addition to B-reduction we define t\-reduction, as follows:

® [A x .A x ] <C[a ]
n
250

for all A e Ter(A) such that x i FV(A),and all contexts C[ ].

A term of the form Ax.Ax where x iFV(A) is called an n-redex. The
transitive reflexive closure of -- »- is — ». By 'ABn-calculus' we mean the
n n
reduction system

A3n = <Ter (A ) , — -- »- >.

P T1

The union -7 -> u -- ► is written as -r— >■ or just --

B n Bn

1.2. CONSTRUCTION OF Bn~REDUCTION DIAGRAMS

Let coinitial Bn-reductions (R^ = A -- »-. .-- »- B and <R = A --- ►. .--->-C be
given. As in 1.6.1 we will try to find a common Bn~reduct D ofB, Cby
structing the reduction diagram V(6i^r6{^) . In most cases it is obvious how
the diagram construction for B~reductions in 1.6.1 is to be extended to in­
clude n-reductions. We will mention therefore only the two noteworthy cases:

Ax
(I) C [ (Ax.Ax)B] C[AB]
Ax n
rI (trivial or 'empty' step)
I
£[AB] — C[AB]

(II) C[Ax.(Ay.A(y) )x] CtAx.A(x)]

i
Ax 1

CCAy.A(y) ] <E[Ax .A (x ) ]

Here in (I), (II) x 4 FV(A). In the sequel we will often omit this condition
and assume it tacitly. Note that in (II) we identify the a-equivalent terms
Ay-A(y) and Ax.A(x).
So in 3u-reduction diagrams we encounter the following types of ele­
mentary diagrams: the ones which are already mentioned for AB (see 1.6.1.1),
plus
 251

n___ B .'
___
--- g
--.---- T
" "’ ^
> 1
1
n n n ^n>i n |
times i
i
i
^ > 1
n B B
erasure

n B B
T
1 1 T --------- 1
i
i
1 i
1
i n (i d :
i (i) i
i n i
i
i i i
i
.. &i , i
V
V
coincidence absorption

Here (I), (II) in the e.d.'s of the absorption type refer to (I), (II) above.
It' is now easy to extend the strong version of the Church-Rosser theorem
CR+ (Theorem 1.6.9) to the present case:

1.3. THEOREM (Church-Rosser).

Every diagram construction in ABn terminates.

PROOF. Consider a square which is determined by one step in <R resp. <R :

Since B-steps propagate as B-steps (or 0-steps) and similarly for n-

steps, consists entirely of B-steps + possibly 0-steps, or entirely of
n-steps + possibly 0-steps. Similarly for <R".
In all 4 resulting cases it is easy to show that the construction of
P((R'(R") terminates, using in one case the termination of B“diagrams
252

(Thm.I.6.9) and in the other 3 cases that n-reductions have no 'splitting

effect':

C $ D
1.e. VA,B,C3D[A -r-+ B & A — »> C => B — ■*> D & (CED V C -rr+ B) 1.
$ n r\ 3
This fact follows at once by inspection of the e.d.'s in 1.2. □

1.3.1. REMARK. Just as for the case of A3, one can prove that if &' consists
of 6-steps, it is a complete 6-development (Def.I.6.6). This is proved in
Propositions 5.1 and 5.3 (i) below.

2. RESIDUALS

2.1. The definition of residuals for ABn is as in CURRY-FEYS [58] p.117,118.

We repeat the 'critical cases' of this definition.
Let M -- »• M' where R c M is a 3- or n~redex, and let S c m be a redex
whose residuals in M' we want to define. It is immediately clear what the
residuals of S in M' should be, except in the following cases.

(I) i. R = (Ax.Ax)B, x i FV(A)

f■— y i
s
ii. as i. with R,S interchanged

(II) i. S E Ax.(Ay.A)x, x i FV(A)

R
ii. as i. with R,S interchanged.

In these four cases contraction of R leaves S without residuals. For most

A,B this definition is clear, bearing in mind that the residuals of a 13-
re sp. n-redex should be again 3-resp. n-redexes; but it is somewhat sur­
prising in case (I)ii if A E Ay.A' and in case (II)i if A E A'y (yiFV(A')).
Here (I), (II) refer to (I), (II) in 1.2 above.
 253

Redexes R,S in the positions (I) or (II) are suggestively called in

HINDLEY [77] "too close together".

In the sequel (Lemma 4.9) we will need the following proposition. The
proof follows immediately by an inspection of the definitions.

2.2. PROPOSITION. Let R = (Ax.A)B and H = Ay.Cy be a 3-redex resp. an n-

redex in a term M. Then:
M
(i) R and H are "too close together" <=>
H

i.e. the elementary diagram P({r },{h }) is of the type 1- or 1 1 -absorp­

tion .
(ii) if R and H are not "too close together", then (a) R n H = 0 or (b)
R c C or (c) H c A or (d) H c B. □

2.3. REMARK. Analogous to AB-calculus, if

A B

C D

is an elementary diagram, the redexes contracted in B — » D are residuals

of the redex contracted in A -- > C and likewise for the bottom side. This
could suggest that the Parallel Moves Lemma (1.6.12) for AB carries over to
ABn. The PM Lemma says that if <R = MQ >•. .. »- M^ is a finite reduction,
R c M q a redex (B- or n~ in this case), then the projection {r }/& consists
of contractions of residuals R! of R:
l
254

To be more precise, every is a residual via the reduction

M -- »■ ... -- ► L -- b .. . -- >■ L. ; not just via some <R' = -- »- .. -- ► L. as
0 0 l 0 l
in the figure. For A3 this specification is unnecessary, since there in a
diagram descendants and residuals are independent of the reduction path
(see Corollary 1.10.2.10) not so for ABn/ as the next example shows.

2.3.1. COUNTEREXAMPLE. The Parallel Moves Lemma fails in ABn for ordinary
residuals (as in Def. 2.1).

A similar counterexample is given independently by R. Hindley in un­

published notes. See p.255.
In the diagram below the labels 0,1 are introduced to be able to in­
dicate which redexes are contracted. R in is an ri-redex Ay.zly. This rj-
redex is doubled (AQy and Ay) and one of those residuals is substituted in
the other (A^y in A^y). Now A^y turns out to be the head- A of a B-redex
as well, and A^y is contracted as B-redex. Thereby the other residual A^y is
destroyed - that is, it ceases to be a residual of the original n-redex.
But precisely that redex A^y is contracted in {r }/(R. So the PM Lemma does
not hold for the usual residual concept.
(Note, however, that the final n-redex M^_ is a residual of the original
n-redex in MQ via MQ -- »• M^ -- >• Mj -- ► M^ -- »■ M^ -- 5“ M ^ .)

Although in a Bn-reduction the notion of a residual is not without

complications, there is nothing problematic about the descendant relation
for symbols. We will use this obvious possibility of 'tracing' symbols in
a Bn-reduction to introduce an alternative concept of residual for which
the PM Lemma does hold.

2.4. DEFINITION. Let <R = M ... be a Bn-reduction,

0
Rq a redex in M^ and R^ a redex in M^ such that the head-A of R^ descends
from that of R,
0*
Then, regardless whether R^, R^ are B- or n-redexes, is called a
A-residual of R^ via <R.

2.4.1. REMARKS AND EXAMPLES.

(i) It is easily checked that in the notation of Def. 2.4:
is residual of R^ => R^. is A-residual of R ^ .
But not the converse; for, consider (on p.256):
A .y .iiy
255
256

(Az.zN)(Ax . (Ay.M) x)
T1

Az
(Az.zN)(Ay.M)

(Ay.M) N =

and now is a A-residual, but not an ordinary residual, of R^. Likewise

in the following example:

R = Ax.(Ay.KIyy)x
(J i 3

Ax.KIxx —
i e
i
*
Ax.Ix = R^.

This example shows an undesirable characteristic of the ordinary concept of

residuals: by an internal reduction an n-redex can stop being one and a
moment later reappear as "the same" n-redex; but the latter is not a resi­
dual of the former. It is however a A-residual of the former.
(ii) For A3-calculus the two residual notions coincide.
(iii) Note that in the Counterexample 2.3.1 the final ri-redex is a A-resi­
dual of the original one.
(iv) The theorem of Finite Developments does not hold for A-residuals:

M = (A x.xx) (A z. (A y.yy) z) -r~

u 0 1 Z A q

(Aj Z. (A^y.yy) z) (A^z. (A2y.yy) z)

t ^ 2 - (*2Y-YY) z)

(^2y - y y ) (A z.(A2y.yy)z)

an infinite reduction in which all the contracted redexes are A-

residuals of redexes in M^.

On the other hand, FD does hold for ordinary residuals; see

BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP, VOLKEN [76], Ch.II. The proof there uses the
method of decreasing weights as in 1.4.
 257

3. TRACING IN DIAGRAMS

To keep track of events in a reduction diagram, we will stick labels

on the A's and follow them by means of these labels. In the 3-case this
works very .well, but in the Bri-case there is a complication, since in the
type il e.d.'s (see 1 .2 ) there is sometimes a "confusion" of A's":

(TCAq X. (A^y.A)x ] ---------|-------- At C[Aq X.A[y:=x]]

i
Ax n i
i
i
i
t
m iY.A] 1------------------ -i CtA^y.A]

(Note that the two terms on the right are syntactically equal modulo a-
equivalence, renaming of bound variables.)
Now it is not clear whether the label? in cCA^y.A] should be 0 or 1. There­
fore we put ? = {0,1}. In general:

3.1. DEFINITION. Let us admit as labels for A's (not only redex-A's) in a
3 n-reduction diagram finite sets of natural numbers, denoted by a^,0^,...

In every e.d. except type II it is clear how to carry along these

labels. For a type II e.d. the labels are carried along as indicated in the
figure above, where 0 , 1 are replaced by aQ/°^ and ? = u .

NOTATION. Instead of Ar , we write A ; instead of A r^ „ , we write A_. and

-------- {n} n {0 ,1 } 01
for A0 just A.

3.2. As we said before, we can visualize reduction steps in a diagram as

objects moving to the right or downwards, thereby possibly splitting or
becoming trivial (empty). This gives rise to what we will call propagation
paths, indicated by see the figure below. They should be dis­
tinguished from the reduction paths in the diagram, which are ordinary re­
duction sequences of terms - except that empty steps may occur in them.
Thirdly, we will distinguish in a reduction path the paths which we get by
tracing a single symbol, in case a A. These are A-paths.
258

■ - _
rv
reduction path

---- ---- X

X — propagation path

The notion of 'A-path' seems sufficiently clear to make further illu­

stration of it superfluous.

Note that if A,B are terms on a reduction path and A^ is in B, then

Aq can be traced to a unique 'father' A in A. Even in the Bn-case there is
no ambiguity. Now note the difference between B-diagrams V and Bn~diagrams
p
V : if A,B are terms in V , B 'later' then A (see next figure) then a A
Bn B 0
in B traces back to a unique A in A, regardless of the reduction path be­
tween A and B which one chooses to trace back. But in the father in A
Bn
of Ag in B depends on the chosen reduction path. This is caused by the con­
fusion of A's which we observed earlier and which caused us to introduce
growing labels a. £ 3N .
 259

IIEFINITIQN- Let M * N be a B- or n-reduction step, where is

the head-A of the contracted redex. Par abus de langage, Aa will be called
'the contracted redex-A' of this step.

Before formulating the properties of the labels a which make them

useful, we will give an example illustrating these properties.

3.4. EXAMPLE.

(Aax '(X$y*yy)x)I
260

Note that in a propagation path X --- > X ~~~— > ... as well as in a X-path
X X the labels can increase.

3.5. LEMMA. Let

V fl2
be a completed 3 n-diagram.
Let all the X's in M have a label and carry along these labels throughout V .
Let Ind((R^) be the union of labels of X 's contracted in <R^, and similarly

for the reductions (R^/ anc^ ^ 2^ 1“ T^en t^ie f°ll°win9 holds:

(i) Ind ((R^/iR^) u IndC^/tR^) £ i n d ^ ) u IndftR^)

(ii) the label of a X is weakly monotonically increasing along a X-path in
V, i.e. if X X then a c 3 ,
ot p
(iii) similarly for the label of the contracted X along a propagation path
in V, i.e. if X — ~— > X then a £ £.
ot p

Before giving the actual proof, let us make the following remark.
That the lemma is not entirely trivial is due to the fact that in (R^,
(R^ labels of X's occur which are not £ lnd((R^) u IndttR^) . What we have to
prove is that those labels do not play a role, as label of a contracted X,
further in the diagram.

PROOF. Let a labeling of all the X's in M be given such that the i-th oc­
currence of X in M has label a. . It is not required that a. for i 5^ j ?
1 I D
the are entirely arbitrary. Without loss of generality we may suppose
= { i} ; replacing afterwards {i} by arbitrary a^, (i), (ii), (iii) ob­
viously remain valid.
Now we will prove (i), (ii), (iii) simultaneously by induction on a
construction of V.
Suppose that in our inductive proof a construction stage V ' of P is
reached:
 261

and assume the following induction hypothesis:

(a) if a contracted X in V' has label a then a £ i n d ^ ) u IndO^)
(b) if a X in V ’ has a non-singleton label a, then a £ indC^) u IndC^) •

The induction hypothesis is clearly fulfilled in stage 0 of the construc­

tion .
The remainder of the proof consists of checking the e.d.'s plus what
happens in them with the labels. Without comment we will only mention the
critical cases. Note that the label of a X in a X-path can only increase in
a trivial step, and that the label of the contracted X in a propagation
path can only increase in the first e.d. below:

X
.a 3 a --------- *1
i 3
1
1

*
<1 1
XauB
Xau3
auy auBuy XB ........ Xau3

It is only a matter of patience to verify that (a) and (b) again hold
for V ' + □. We will omit this verification here. If the diagram is completed,
then (a) of the ind.hyp. entails (i) of the Lemma. Part (b) of the ind.hyp.
serves to prove (a) in the case of adjunction of the first e.d. above. □

3.6. COROLLARY. Let R £ M be a redex of which no X-residual is contracted

in <R nor in (R^ (see figure) . Let S £ N be a \-residual of R.
262

Then no X-residual of S is contracted in

PROOF. Let the A of R have label 0, all other A's label 1. Then by the hy­
pothesis of the corollary, 0 i Ind((R^) u IndCiR^) . Hence by (i) of the pre­
vious lemma, 0 i Ind((R^/lR^) . □

3.7. PARALLEL MOVES LEMMA, for A£n w.r.t. A-residuals. Let

(R = M q >■ ... -- ► and let R be a redex in M. Then in P((R,{r }) the pro­
jection {r }/(R consists of contractions of A-residuals of R, via the reduc-
Ai0
tion -- »- ... -- > M ---- y ...
0 n
In other words: the A's of the redexes contracted in {r }/(R can be
traced back via M to the A of R.
n

{R> AiC {r }/(R

Aii

PROOF. The following argument is typical for the notions of diagram con­
struction and tracing of A's by means of growing labels.
Label the A of R with 0, all other A's in ML with 1. So the An- . in
0
{r }/(R have label 0 or 01 by Lemma 3.5. (i) . If a Aj^ has label 0 we are done
for such A^ can only be traced back to A^ by Lemma 3.5.(iii). But if it
has label 01, it might be the case that such a A traces back via M to a 1
n 1
in Mg, what we don't want.

Let us suppose this is the case (*). First we note that in no mul­
tiple labels (01) can occur, since in a A-path the label can only increase
after an empty step (see the e.d.'s in the proof of 3.5) and (R does not con
tain 0 steps. Hence, if a A^. in {r }/(R traces back via M to a A. in M_,
U1 n 1 0
this trace must be via a A. in M . This implies that in {r }/<R a 0-step must
1 n
occur, in which this label 1 grows to 01:
 Let us call such a situation a 'vertical 1-adjunction'.
Now consider an arbitrary construction of the diagram P({r },<R) and in this
construction the first addition of an e.d. in which a vertical 1-adjunction
occurs. This e.d. must have one of the two following forms:

A„ A, — ■ A,
1 I01 —
i
---------- x----------- *
0 !
1
1 ! 01— i|
i
i h j ! !
i X1
i1 i i 1
i 1
* 1 ^ nU 1
A„ 1t ----------------------- IX 01 J
01 01

However, in both cases we have a vertical A^-contraction, in contradiction

with Lemma 3.5.(ii) which states that for every vertical A^-contraction we
must have 0 e a (since we started with a vertical AQ-contraction).
So we have proved that (*) is not the case, i.e. also the AQ^ in {r }/(R
trace back to A^ in M^. □

4. STANDARDIZATION OF 3^-REDUCTIONS

As in 1.9 for A3, we will employ a marker to help us remember which

(residuals of) redexes are not allowed to be contracted in a standard re­
duction. In fact we need two markers: *_ and * , for 3“ resp. n-redexes.
P T1

4.1. DEFINITION. Every time when in a reduction a 3- or n-redex with head-A

(say) Aq is contracted, we attach to all the 3-redex-A's < AQ a marker
(if not already present) and to all the n~redex-A's < AQ a marker (if
not already present). Note that it may happen that one A bears both markers
A*^*n . These markers are carried along in a reduction as follows:
264

1) all the residuals of (A*^x.A)B will be marked by *6

2) all the residuals of A ^x.Ax (xiFV(A)) will be marked by *n.

Now a standard Bn-reduction is a reduction in which no redex is con­

tracted whose head-A is marked.

4.2. REMARK. This definition is equivalent with the definition of strongly

standard Bn-reduction in HINDLEY [78].

It turns out to be convenient for the proof below to work with a

stronger notion of standardness, which is also easier to formulate (with
the terminology of markers).

4.3. DEFINITION.
(i) Every time when a B~ or n-redex with head-A (say) Aq is contracted,
we mark all the redex-A's (B- or n~) to the left of A^ with *, if not
yet marked.
(ii) These markers are carried along in the reduction as follows. All the
A's which descend from a A*, will also be marked - regardless whether
they are redex-A's or not.
(iii) Now a A-standard Bn-reduction is one in which no redex is contracted
whose A is marked.

4.4. REMARK.
(i) A-standard = standard w.r.t. A-residuals.
(ii) <R is a A-standard Bn-reduction =» is a standard Bn-reduction.
Cf. 2.4.1.(i). Here also, the converse does not hold.

4.5. THE STANDARDIZATION PROCEDURE FOR ABn

First we will extend the realtion "<" (to the left of) for A's in a
term to redexes.

4.5.1. DEFINITION. Let M be a A-term and R,S two redexes in M. Then

R < S <=> A_ < A„ or S £ R.

R S +

Here A , A are the head-A's of R,S.

 265

4.5.2. REMARK. So if R,S are in position (I) (Def.2.1), R E (Ax.Ax)B E SB,

then the B-redex R is to the left of the n-redex S.

4.5.3. DEFINITION. Let <R = ► ... be a (finite or infinite) re­

duction .
(i) In Mg we select a redex, called lmc (<ft) , as follows, lmc (<R) := the left­
most redex in of which a A-residual is contracted in <R.
(ii) As in 1.7 for A3, define

p((R) := <R/{lmc (<R) }.

4.5.4. DEFINITION OF THE STANDARDIZATION PROCEDURE FOR ABn

Let = M q -- ► -- ► ... be given. Then the (possibly infinite) re­

duction <R is obtained as follows:
s

a = M lmC.(lR) > M ’ lmc(Pfl) > M- lmc (P 2fi) >

s 0 1 2

Cf. 1.9.3; see also the figure there.

Before we prove that <R is A-standard, hence standard, and that if

and end in the same term, we will give some examples and state some tech­
nical lemmas.

4.6. EXAMPLES. Example 1 shows why we introduced A-residuals in the defini­

tion of the standardization procedure. For, the straightforward generaliza­
tion of the method for AB-calculus would have used * , * (see 4.1), i.e.
p n
standardness w.r.t. the usual residual concept, and as lmc(<R) we would have
taken: the leftmost redex in M^ which has a residual (in the usual sense)
contracted in <R.
But this generalization fails: as this example shows the result of the
procedure need not be standard. (This was pointed out to me by Gerd Mitschke.)
As usual, the dotted lines in the reduction diagram below denote empty
steps.
266

<R

(Ax.(Ay.yR)(lx))X lx (Ax.(Ay.yR)x)X (Ay.yR)X

XR XR'

Example 2 shows how application of the A-standardization method does produce

a A-standard (and hence standard) reduction for <R, the same reduction as in
Example 1.
In the diagram below, the A's of redexes which have a A-residual con-
2
tracted in <R are indicated by +. Similarly for p((R) , p (<R) ,...
Note that contains an n-step while <R does not. This is because in
s
the definition of 'lmc' we have built in a preference for 6-steps over
n-steps: if a A is a 6-redex A as well as an n-redex A, the 6-redex is to
the left of the n-redex (Def. 4.5.1)
 267

(Xx.(Xy.yR)(lx))X
t i 'K t (Xx. (Xy.yR) x) X (Xy.yR)X XR XR'

EXAMPLE 3 . In the reduction diagram below, the upper reduction (R contains

a 3-step (Xy), which is in a remarkable way transformed by the standardi­
zation procedure into an n-step (Xy) in <R .
s
268

Xx. (Xy.KIyy)x
Xx.KIxx Xx.Ix I
---------------i---------------.... --------------- ------------------------- -------------- i
W7Ky j 37k nr n 1
1
1 [ 1
1 l 1
^ 1 t
1 l i
1 1 l
Xy.Klyy 1 Xy.KIyy 1 Xy.Iy 1.
B,K l n f
( i
1 t
3 1 1
1 1
1
: i
Xy.Iy lXy.Iy |.
Xy.Iy
n '
l
1
n n
n !
I

I .*____________ !

EXAMPLE 4 . Here, as in example 2, an n-step in is transformed into a 6“

step in (Rg .

(Xz.zN)(Xx.(Xy.M)x) (Xz.zN)(Xy.M) (Xy.M)N M(N)

 269

EXAMPLE 5.

(Xx.m(Ix) )M (Xx.mx)M 0)M MM

+ + +

(co=Xy.yy)

4.6.1. REMARK. Without the trivial steps the diagrams would be much simpler;
in example 5 we would have

(Xx.o)(lx) )M

But in this way we loose all intuition for the standardization procedure.
270

In a standard reduction in A3-calculus the 'action' is literally going

from left to right in a term. In a standard 3n~reduction this is not so;
sometimes there is a leftward jump, as in the following examples:

Ax. (aAy.xy) --- >- Ax.ax --- »- a

or

Ax.a(lx) Ax.ax --- y a

3 n

or

Ax.(Az.a)xx Ax.ax --- >■ a .

3 n

It is clear that such a leftward jump in a 3n_standard reduction occurs on­

ly to contract an n-redex. (We will not prove this fact.) The next lemma
states that our standard reduction in spe, <R , indeed satisfies this require­
ment. Then we prove, using this property, that <R is A-standard.
s

4.7. LEMMA. If in 61 a A is contracted to the left of a A , then this must

s
be an n-contraction. And hence, by the definition o f t me (with its built-in
preference for 3-reductions if there is choice) it is a contraction of a
passive n-redex.

PROOF. Suppose the lemma is false: let (see figure) be the first
term in <Rg in which a A(say A^) as 3-redex is going to be contracted with
a A (say A*) to its right. Let M^ be the term in which this A* got its
marker. By A is meant the A which is going to be contracted, by A* that
this A possibly bears a marker * (in the situation above this is in fact
not possible).

Now it is not hard to see that A -A. in M' , trace back to A .A, in
0 1 n+m+1 0 1
M' in the same position A < A . (*). This is so because every A in
n 0 1 ^
M',...,M' such that A < A^,A. is an n-redex-A by our hypothesis,
n n+m ^ 0 1 J
Moreover, by the same hypothesis, A^ is in M^ already a 6-redex-A.
Here we use also the following fact:
 271

if a X is not a &-redex-\, then the same is true after an r\-reduction.

(Another formulation of this fact is:
r\-reductions do not create new &-redexes w.r.t. \-residuals. 1

Note that this is not true w.r.t. ordinary residuals; cf.:

[Ax.(Ay.M)x]N---► (Ay.M)N,

where (Xy.M)N is a newly created B-redex.)

Now A_ in M' is to the right of A*, because A. was marked for the
+2 n * 1 1
first time in M'. Therefore (by (*)) also A_ > A_ in M' . By the definition
n J ^2 0 n
of lmc, this means that A^ in has no contracted A-residual in p iR.
Also A^ in M' has no contracted A-residual in the reduction
0 n
M' -- ► ... -- >■ M* , . Here we use that A^ is not multiplied in this reduc-
n n+m+1 0
tion (this could only be done by a B-redex to the left of A^ and hence of
A^; but according to the hypothesis such redexes cannot be contracted in
272

this reduction.)
Hence, by Coroll. 3.6, 1 in M' , has no contracted X-residual in
n+m+1 _ 0 n+m+1
p <K. But then, contrary to what we supDosed, in M' ,:
n+m+1 ~ n+m+1
X^ ^ lmc(p (ft). Contradiction. □

It is now easy to prove:

4.8. LEMMA. <R is a X-standard reduction sequence.

PROOF. Consider the following enlargement of the above figure:

p (R
M'
n

I
vl'
p n+m/
(o
R

n+m

Let us first note as an immediate consequence of the preceeding lemma,

that no X in <Rg can be multiplied.
Now suppose that (ft is not X-standard. Then there is a X in M 1 which
s O n
gets a * there for the first time, and descending to a X-residual in say
M' which is lmc (pn+m<R) . The (redex whose head-X is) X^ in M' has no X-
residual contracted in p (ft, otherwise the X^ (displayed there) would not
have been lmc(pn<R). And since X* in M^ is not multiplied in the reduction
M* -- ► ... -- ► M' . , X_ has no X-resicLual contracted in that reduction.
n n+m 0
Hence, by Corollary 3.6, X_ in M' has no X-residual contracted in
n+m 0 n+m
p (R. Contradiction. □

4.9. LEMMA. Let (ft = MQ -> M^ -- > ... be an infinite $n-reduction sequence
and H c m q an n-redex. Then the projection of 61 by E is again infinite.
 273

PROOF. Suppose not. Then every step after say has an empty projection in
the following figure, in particular every $“Step after Mn «

We will now see how such a B“Step, which has an empty projection for
some projecting n-reduction, looks like; and then conclude that it is im­
possible for an infinite reduction sequence, in casu -- >■ ...,
to contain next to r]-steps only B-steps of that kind.
So let the projection of N_ — N' by the n-reduction N_ — » N be
0 B 0 J O n m
empty, as in the next figure. Note that the B~step does not split in its
propagation, until it vanishes (becomes 0) after some step say N^ — N^+ ^.
Write R_^ = (Ax.AjB^ (0<i<k). From Proposition 2.2 it follows immediate­
ly that the r|-reduction

coC(Xx -v bo ] ir ckC(Xx- v Bk]

is 'separable' as follows:

(a,b)CQ[ ] ]
*k[

(*)
<c) *„ T \
(d) B0 —
Bk

corresponding to (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) in Prop

(Remark ad (a) : in fact n-reduction is not defined for contexts <C[ ]; but
considering a context as a term in which some special free variable □ may
occur once, it is clear what n-reduction of contexts is. E.g. Ax.ydzx is
274

a context rrredex.)

No 5 W

NJ = t [RJ]

\ 5W

V ___

N >J/
m

So Rq R^, and the (3-redex R^ and the r|-redex are "too close together",
Now there are two cases: R^ and I-absorb or II-absorb each other.

CASE (i). R^ is II-absorbed by (see 1.2).

Then N^ = {^[R^] = (Ax .A^) Bk ] = <C£[ Ay. (Ax.A^ y] t'[H_ ], i .e.
k k
= Xy.R^ and = y and y i FVCA^) . So by (*) ,

(Xx .Aq) y

where we have used the notation M for an r|-expansion of M. (I.e. M — » M)

~ n
 275

CASE (ii). is I-absorbed by H^.

Then Nk E C CRj^] = O^E ( X x . A ^ B ^ 5 <Ek [ (Ax.A ^ x ) ] where x i FV(A£),
\ = Ax.A^x.

So Ao V * *k x ' hence Ao E ^ x -
So

R q E (Ax.A^x)Bq/ X i FV(A'k )

Now we have proved that the infinite reduction M -- *■ M 4 -- >■ . ..

n n+1
contains only
(a) n-steps
(b) 3-steps of type (i)
(c) 3-steps of type (ii).

However, this is impossible: such a reduction cannot be infinite. For let

m(M) be the number of multiplying- X's in M (not only redex-X's) where X in
Xx.A is called multiplying iff x occurs more than once as a free variable
in A. Now type (a) and (c) steps diminish the length Z(M) of a term M, while
keeping m(M) constant, and type (b) steps may increase Z (M) but only at the
cost of diminishing m(M) . Hence the ordinal number <m(M),£(M)> = wm(M)+£(M)
decreases in a strictly monotonic way along the reduction -- >• -- ► ..
Contradiction. □

4.10. PROPOSITION.
ft

<R'
In V(R, {&nc (<R) }) the reduction step lmc (<ft) propagates to the right, without
splitting, until it vanishes (in the indicated square) by 'coincidence1 or
'I- or 1 1 -absorption1 (not erasure).

PROOF. Let Xq be the head-X of £mc (<R) . Using the same kind of argument as
in the proof that <R is X-standard, one shows easily that if somewhere in
& a X is contracted to the left of (a descendant of) X^, then this X must
be an n-redex-X (*) , in fact even a passive r|-redex.
From this it follows directly that Zmc (<R) does not split and that X^
276

is not multiplied in (ft.

From this last fact it is clear that if £mc ((ft) propagates until the
(unique) step in (ft in which X^ is contracted, then the indicated square
must be of one of the following forms:

xo xo xo x°
6 ! n l n i
6 I
3 1 6 1
xo - ; xo n i xo
1 i i
1
coincidence I-absorption

Otherwise the £mc ((ft) contraction had already vanished before it reach­
ed the X^-contraction in (ft; and this can only have happened by II-absorp­
tion (not erasure, by (*).) □

4.11. PROPOSITION. Let (ft, X^ be as in the preceding proposition. Let the

step in (ft in which X^ is contracted, be a 3-step. Then Imc ((ft) is a 3-redex
(and {£mc ((ft) } a 3-step.)

PROOF. (Note that the analogue for n does not hold; see p<ft and £mc (p(ft) in
Example 4.6.4.) Suppose the proposition is false. Then £mc ((ft) is a passive
ri-redex. But since to the left of X^ in (ft only n-reductions take place
(see proof of preceding proposition), this passive n-redex cannot be acti­
vated, in contradiction with the fact that X^ in (ft was a 3-redex X. □

Finally we can combine all these lemmas and propositions:

4.12. THEOREM, (fts is a X-standard (hence standard) reduction sequence for

(ft.

PROOF.
 277

ft

In 4.8 it is proved that (Rg is A-standard. Proposition 4.10 states

that the right side of V is 0.
Now suppose, for a proof by contradiction, that <R is infinite. Then
there is a k such that (R^/M^ * • -• -- * is infinite and
(R^/Mq >■ ... ► ^ + 1 is (i-e - contains after some B only 0-steps.)
Let V' be the subdiagram as in the figure above.
From Lemma 4.9 we know that the "critical" step -- * ^ + 1 cannot ke
an r|-step (otherwise (R^/M^ - ... -- ► was still infinite.) Hence (R
is a 3-reduction, since 3-steps propagate as 3-steps or 0-steps. (In fact
<R is a complete 3-development, as is proved in Propositions 5.1 and 5.3(i).)
Now let us look at the "critical" subdiagram V'. By Prop. 4.11 all the
non-empty steps in <R^ and 3-steps.
By exactly the same argument as in 1.9.6, using the Hyland-Wadsworth
labels (1.3.7) and SN for labeled reduction (1.8), it is clear that <R must
be finite. Contradiction, hence <R is finite.
s
278

It remains to prove that the lower side of i.e. R/tR^, is empty.

This is trivial, for if not, then <R would have continued.
s
Hence <R and <R end in the same term M . □
s n

4.12.1. REMARK. Using the fact that <R^ is a B-development, once can replace
the use of SN for HW-labeled terms by the use of FD for A3.

4.13. REMARK. There are two well-known technical lemmas concerning the re­
lation between 3- and n-reductions:

4.13.1. LEMMA. (Postponement of r\-reductions)

If M N then 3L M — r-» L -- » N.
3n 3 n

4.13.2. LEMMA. M has a 3n-normal form <=> M has a 3-normal form.

It is interesting to note that these lemmas (and in fact, a strengthened

version of the first) follow easily using the method of the preceding proof.

PROOF of 4.13.1. Note that Prop. 4.10 remains valid when instead of £mc (<R)
we take £mc (<R) , that is: the leftmost 3-redex in M having a A-residual
3 0
contracted in <R.
Now define (instead of <R ) the reduction <R_ by reDlacing in the de-
s 3 /s
finition of <R , £mc by Imc .
s 3
Checking the proofs above, we see that also <R is finite, in exactly
P /S
the same way as for (R^.
After <R0 has stopped (that is, after we have 'exhausted' the tmc -
3, s 3
steps) the following situation has arisen:

(For, if L — » N was not yet an r|-reduction, <R would have continued.)

3, s
This proves lemma 4.13.1. Now it can be easily checked that something
more is proved: all the n-reductions in L — » N are passive (an n_reduction
 279

Xx Cx
A — ^— > B is passive when Xx.Cx is a passive subterm of A, i.e. not occurr­
ing in ((Xx.Cx)D) for some D.)
For if not, <R_ would have gone further due to its definition and the
3/S
definition of X-residual. □

PROOF of 4.13.2. <= is almost trivial.

=>: By Lemma 4.13.1 the r|-steps in (ft can be postponed, so we have a reduction
M "-■» L -- » N. Now L has a 8-normal form; for suppose not, then there is
p n
an infinite 8-reduction (ft' = L -- »- L' -- ► L" -- >■__ So by Lemma 4.9 the
projection (ft" = (ft'/L -- » N must be infinite:
n

contradicting the fact that N is a 8n-normal form. □

5. THE NORMALIZATION THEOREM FOR X8n~CALCULUS

In this section we will generalize the Normalization Theorem (1.11.2)

and the Quasi-normalization Theorem (1.11.6) (in other words: "(eventually)
leftmost reductions are normalizing") from X8 to X8r|.
In X8 the adjectives 'normal' and 'leftmost' for redexes and reductions
were used as synonyms. In X8n the leftmost redex-X may belong to two redexes,
e.g. in the term (Xx.ax)b; in such a case Definition 4.5.1 says that the
8-redex is the leftmost redex.

DEFINITION.
(i) Let R c m be a 8~ or n~redex such that R's head-X is the leftmost
redex-X. Then R is called a normal redex of M.
280

(ii) A normal reduction is a reduction in which only normal redexes are

contracted. Likewise for the leftmost reduction.

So e.g. the term M = (Ax.ax)b has two normal redexes, Ax.ax and M.
Note that there is now no unique normal reduction, though the difference
between two coinitial normal reductions is inessential. The leftmost reduc­
tion is unique; it is that normal reduction having the most 3-steps in it.
In A3 there is only one standard reduction from a given term M to its
normal form, namely the leftmost (or: normal) reduction. This is no longer
true in the A3n-calculus. There a A-standard reduction ending in a 3n~normal
form may by-pass the normal redex(es):

EXAMPLE 1. Let co = Ay.yy,

<R = Ax.Icox —^—► Ax . ojx — Ax. xx.
1 p p

= Ax.Icox -- > Ioj to.

2 n 3

EXAMPLE 2 .*
1
(ft, = Ax.co(Ix) —>• Ax.cox ------ > 0).
1 CO ^
(ft = Ax . cj(I x ) — Ax. I x( I x) — Ax. x(Ix) — r-* Ax. XX.
^ p p p

In all three cases, both (ft^ and are A-standard while is moreover
a leftmost reduction.
We will now proceed to the Normalization theorem for A3n-calculus. As
observed in the preceding remark, the proof of 1.11.2 does not carry over
to A3n, since A-standard reductions may by-pass the normal redex(es) and
still reach a 3r|-normal form.
We have tried to construct a proof as follows: consider an arbitrary
A-standard reduction to the 3n~normal form, and try to amend this into a
normal reduction - but this seemed too messy. Therefore we will follow
another proof strategy, in which no use is made of the A-standardization
theorem.
Since the proof involves some technical lemmas and a lot of details,
we will begin by exhibiting the dependence of the elements of the proof
in the following figure.
 281

Here the following terminology is used. If A and B are two classes of re­
ductions, B containing only finite reductions, we will say: A is c l o s e d
under B-projections iff for all (ft, (ft1:

(ft € A, (ft' e B f (ft and (ft' coinitial => <ft/(ft* e A.

E.g. if A is the class of complete 3-developments, B the class of all

finite n-reductions, we will say for short: "c o m p l e t e 3-d e v e l o p m e n t s a r e
closed under ^ - p r o j e c t i o n s When B is the class of all finite 3n~reductions,
we will just say that "c o m p l e t e 3-d e v e l o p m e n t s a r e c l o s e d u n d e r p r o j e c t i o n s ".
282

5.0. PRELIMINARIES

5.0. 1. Let M be a X-term and HR a set of 3-redexes in M. As is well-known,

all complete 3-developments "relative to HR " end in the same result (FD!).
Instead of HR we will employ a different but equivalent terminology, see
also BARENDREGT e.a. [76] Ch.II; instead of the pair (M,3R) we take M plus
an underlining of every X in M which is the X of a redex in 3R ; example:

[Xz.z((Xx.yXa.a)z)]p.

Such an enriched M will be written as (M,v); sometimes we will identify M

and (M,v) if it is clear what v is meant, v can be seen as a set of 3-redex-
X 's in M.
Reduction relative to HR is now called underlined 3-reduction, or ^ - r e d u c ­

tion:

(M, v) — ^ (M',v 1) .

NOTATION, if v, v' are underlinings of M, such that v £ v ', we write

(M, v) £ (M, v ') .

5.0. 2. DEFINITION. By (FD) , we can define a norm ll(Mf3)H as the length

(i.e. number of steps) of the longest j3-reduction starting from (M,v) .

Minimal underlining corresponding to a complete 3-development (R

A complete 3-development <R does not determine uniquely a corresponding

underlining, since we work in XK-calculus. But = M > M' > ... does
determine uniquely a minimal underlining v n# corresponding to it; namely,
the set of all X's of 3-redexes in M of which a residual is contracted in
<R.

5.0. 3. DEFINITION. Now we define for a complete 3-development

= M -- > M' -- >- ...:

\\m = II (M,v . )H .
 283

In the sequel we will need the following obvious facts:

5.0. 4. PROPOSITION.
(i) If (M,v) — z— y (M'fv')f then II(M ,v)II > II(M ',v ') II.
p
(ii) If (M,v) £ (M, v 1) , then II(M ,v)II > H (M ,v ') II- U

5.0. 5. 3n—terms and their reductions. We borrow a method from BARENDREGT

e.a. [76] Ch.II: Introduce two formal symbols - and ~, to be placed under
the A of a 8-redex resp. of an n-redex:

(j\x.A)B resp. Ax.Cx.

RESTRICTION: coincidence of -, ~ is not allowed, so (Ax.Ax)B is not a well-

formed term in our system.
The symbols ~ are introduced to formalize the usual concept of 8n-resi-
dual. Reduction for such 8n-terms is defined as follows:
(1) only underlined redexes, i.e. (Ax.A)B or Ax.Ax, may be contracted,
(2) all residuals (in the usual sense) of (Ax.A)B begin again with A_; simi­
larly for Ax.Ax. Residuals of non-underlined terms are again non-under-
lined.

EXAMPLE.

\
(Ax.(Ay.Ay)x)B ■ - (Ay.Ay)B
3
A
ii ——— )- (Ax.Ax)B
n

A
(Ax. (Ay .Ay) x) B - (Ay.Ay)B
n

ii A
► (Ax.Ax)B
6

Now it is a routine matter to verify that the construction of diagrams im­

mediately extends to the present case. (This is verified in BARENDREGT e.a.
[76] Ch.II, however without 0-steps.) Here it is essential that — cannot oc­
cur. For otherwise we are in trouble:
284

(Ax.(Ay.By)x)C (Ax.Bx)C
Ay -

Ay

(Ax.Bx)C

and now it is not clear whether ? should begin with A, A_, A. (Remark: it is
.possible to find a remedy such that _A is allowed while we retain the "weak
CR-property" (i.e. CR for the elementary diagrams) and even (FD) - but at
the cost of some complications.)

5.1. PROPOSITION. Complete 3-developments are closed under 3-projections.

PROOF. Let <R = M -- »• M„ -- 5- .. -- ► M be a complete 3-development and

----- 0 1 n
R £ M q a 3-redex. We must prove that <R* = <R/{<R} is again a complete 3-devel­
opment .

{r }/<R

M'
Mo <R' = <R/{r } n

Take the u . corresponding with and label the A's e \) . with 0.

mm mm
By the usual argument (tracing of labels in 3-diagrams) we see that
every step in <R' is also a A^-step; moreover all A^ in NT have disappeared
since M contains no A .
n 0
Hence <R" is a complete 3-development, namely of the set of 3-redexes
in with AQ as head-A. □

5.2. PROPOSITION. Let, as in the above proof, <R = MQ -->■ -- ► ... -- ► Mn

be a complete 3-development, R £ be a 3-redex and <R' = <R/{r }. Suppose
moreover that
(i) R is the leftmost 3-redex, and
(ii) {r }/<R = 0.
Then: II(Rll > II(ft'II.

PROOF. Let u . be as above. Since R is the leftmost 3-redex, it is clear

----- mm
that

{r }/<R = 0 <=> the head-A of R is e u . .

mm
 285

Hence the head-A of R is underlined. Hence we have

and therefore by Prop. 5.04(i):

ii(Rii > iifl'ii. n

5.3. PROPOSITION. Let <R be a complete $-development and <R' a one-step T\-pro-
jection of (R. Then:
(i) <R' is again a complete (3-development, and
(ii) II(RII > II<R' I .
PROOF.

M <R

T1 Ax .Ax
V

Let (M,u) be the minimal underlining of M corresponding to (R. We dis­

tinguish 2 cases:

CASE 1. The head-A of Ax.Ax is in u.

Label all the A's in u with 0, except the A of Ax.Ax (which is also a $-
redex-A); this A gets label 01. The remaining A's get label 2.
So every step in the reductions {Ax.Ax}, (R is a contraction of a A^ or
A ^ . The same is therefore true in (R'. by Lemma 3.5.
Furthermore: every contracted A in (R* can be traced back to a A in M',
which must have label 0. This follows from the preceding remark plus Lemma
3.5 and the fact that 1 does no longer occur in labels in M' .
(*) Now it is easily checked that every A^ in M' is a $-redex-A, since
Ax.Ax is active in the present case. (The critical case to check is:

M ...((Aq 1x .(AQy.B )x)C)...

A

M' = ...((AQy.B)C)... .)
286

Further we note that <R* is a 3-reduction, since <R is so and 3-steps

propagate as 3-steps or 0-steps.
So the situation is that some 3-redex-A's in M' have label 0, the other
A's in M' have label 2, and that in <R' only 3-steps occur with label con­
taining 0. Therefore <R' is a 3-development.
To see that <R' is complete, note that there can only be fusion of A^
and (not of A^ and A o r A ^ and A^) (**) This follows from the proof

3 au3
of Lemma 3.5: in a diagram, A and A_ can only fuse to A _ if 'before' this
^ a
fusion we have a A - and a A -contraction in the diagram,
a 3
Furthermore, since is complete, only A^'s occur i-n N * Hence, since
by (**) the label 2 cannot grow, only A^'s occur i-n N '• Hence <R' is a com­
plete 3-reduction of all the 3-redexes in M* starting with AQ .

It remains to be shown that ll<Rll > II(R'll. Let us again consider two
cases: there is a second A e u such that this A and the n-redex A^x.Ax
are "too close together", or not. (The first A e u is the head-A of A ^ x .Ax
itself.)

(a) M E •••(A01x.(AQy.B)x)C...

M' E ... (A y.B)C...

(b) M = *** (Aq j X.Ax )C...(A f AQy.B)

M' = ... AC ...

Let u, u' be the set of A^, A ^ in M resp. M'. Then for both cases
(a), (b) we have

(M,u) -g— ► (M* ,u ') .

Hence by Prop.5.0.4(i):

(1) II(M,U)II > II(M',U')II.

Maybe o' is not the minimal underlining u' . corresponding to <R', but that
J mm
does not matter, since we have
 287

(M',u') 2 (M',U'. ) ,
mm

hence by Prop.5.0.4 (ii):

(2) ll(M ' , U ’ ) II > II (M1 , 0 ' . )ll .

mm

Combining (1) and (2) we have

mil > llfl'll.

This proves the proposition for case 1.

CASE 2 . The head-A of Ax.Ax is not in t. Now the proof above breaks down at
at point (*), see p.285.
We will use the method of terms • So let us underline in M the A's
in u as _A, and the A of Ax.Ax as A. Result: a j3n-term M * . Extend the under­
lining to V . Result: a Br|-diagram V .
■k
It is clear that <R* is a complete 3-development, since every step in
in it is a ^-contraction (for this is so in <R*, and A_-steps propagate as
A-steps or 0-steps) , and since no A^ occurs in N'* (because no A_ occurs in
N*.)
Moreover, it is readily seen that we are in one of the two following
cases (this is a similar distintion of cases as above; but here it is more
essential):
(a) M* = ... Ax.(Ay.B)x __

*
M' Ay.B ...

*
(b) M Ax.Ax ...
(A ^ Ay.B; it is allowed that A = Ay.B)
*
M* A ...

The difference between (a) and (b) is that in (a) one symbol is
lost. Let (M,u) and (M',u') be M resp. M' , where ~ is erased.
Then in case (a):

Ay
(M,u) — r— ► (M1,u '), due to a-conversion.
288

So by the same argument as in case 1,

IIAll > BA'II.

In case (b) , we claim: ll(M,u)ll = II (M ',U ') II.

Hence

II (M ,u)II > ll(M,,u'. )II, i.e. IIAll > IIA'II.

mm

Proof of the claim. The set of J3-reductions of (M,v) is trivially seen to

be "isomorphic" to that of (M',u'). Namely, underline Ax.Ax in M and re­
place all occurrences of Ax.A'x in a B-reduction of (M,u) by A'; result:
a _3-reduction of (M',u') . And so on.

This proves the proposition for case 2. □

Before stating Prop. 5.5 and combining Prop. 5.2, 5.3 into proposition
5.6 we need a definition.

5.4. DEFINITION. Let A = -- ► M„ -- ► ... be a finite or infinite Bri-re-

0 1 p
duction. A is called 3-normal if in every 3-step M — ~ — ► M . in A, A is
n 3 n+l n
the leftmost 8-redex in M .
n

5.4.1. REMARK. Obviously, if A is normal, then it is 8-normal. The reason

to introduce this weaker property '8-normal' is that 8-normal reductions
are closed under projections (prop.5.5), while normal reductions are not,
as the following example shows:

(ft = (Ay.yyj (Ay.yy) ) .

M = Ax.ftf(Aa.I)x]x
ft fr—
t * f—t
A: -r— > M M
6
Aa 3 Aa 8 Aa B

A' M' = Ax.ftlx

ft M'
ft
M'
ft
6 8 B

A is normal, b u t A' not, since it should start with the contraction of

the n-redex m '.
 289

5.5. PROPOSITION. 8-normal reductions are closed under projections.

PROOF. Consider the elementary diagram:

A leftmost B

One easily checks that C --- D is an empty step, or again a leftmost 8-con-
traction. (Since a 8- or n~step cannot create 8-redexes to 'its' left.)
From this it follows immediately that if <R is 8-normal and <R' is a
projection, then every 8-step in <R' is a leftmost 8-contraction, i.e. <R*
is 8-normal. □

5.6. PROPOSITION. One step projections of infinite 8-normal reductions are

infinite.

PROOF. Let (R be 8-normal and infinite. We have to prove

(i) one step tt-projections of <R are infinite, and
(ii) one step 8-projections of (R are infinite.

(i) is Lemma 4.9 (we do not need ^-normality' here.)

Proof of (ii) . <R, 8-normal and infinite

n
<R*

Supoose (ii) does not hold: then let <R' be 0 after say M'. By Prop.
n
5.1 and 5.3(i), the reductions <R^ , *••• are complete 8-developments.
By 5.2 and 5.3(ii), we have H<R II > II(R II > II(R II > ... where > is >
n n+1 n+2
every time that M -- >■ M . is a 8-step.
n n+1
But since <R is infinite, it contains infinitely many 8-steps. Contra­
diction. n
290

5.7. COROLLARY. Infinite B~normal reductions are closed under projections.

PROOF. Immediate, by 5.5 and 5.6. □

5.8. THEOREM (Normalization for \$r\-calculus) .

Normal reductions are normalizing.

PROOF. Let M have the Bn-normal form N, and let <R be a reduction from M to
N.

<R
M n

<R

N,Bn-n.f. <ftn/<R = 0

Suppose that <R^, a maximal normal reduction starting with M, is in­

finite. Then (since <R is also 3-normal) by the orevious Corollary, the
n 7
projection of <R^ by <R is still infinite.

But since N is a Bn-normal form, this projection is empty. Contradic­

tion, hence <R is finite. Hence by definition of fl r it ends in a Bn-n.f.
n n
which must be N by CR. □

Now we come to the Quasi-normalization Theorem for ABn- First we need

a definition, analogous to Def. 1.11.4:

5.9. DEFINITION. Let <R = MQ -- »- -- ► ... be a finite or infinite Bn~re-

duction and R c m some redex in <R.
~ n
R is called (A-) secured in <R iff eventually there are no (A-) residuals
of R left, i.e. 3m Vra' > m M contains no (A-) residuals of R.
m

The proof of the Quasi-normalization theorem is a generalization of

that for A3 (1.11.6), but not entirely straightforward. For, the analogue
of Lemma 1.11.5 (with 'secured' replaced by 'A-secured') does not hold for
ABn, as the following example shows.

5.10. EXAMPLE. Let D = Azxy. zzyx (See also Example 6.2.) Let
M = R = A x.DDyx. <R is the reduction in which each time the leftmost 3-
0 0 1 qn
redex is contracted (so in A3, <R is the normal red u c t i o n ) ; it is a quasi-
gn
normal reduction in ABn-
 291

However, the normal n-redex R c iyi is not A-secured in <R , for A

“ 0 qn 0
stays alive. Yet, our requirement for the proof of the Quasi-normalization
theorem is fulfilled: 3n {r }/ (<R ) = 0. ( (R denotes the initial segment of
n qn n
length n of <R; see Notation 1.11.1)

DDy
M q =: R = AgX.DDyx

Aq X .(Aix'y '.DDy'x ')yx 4 (AjX'y1.DDy1x ')y

A0x.(A y .DDy'y)x A2y * .DDy'y

Aq X.DDxy AQ2x.DDxy

Therefore we have to make the following distinction between two con­

cepts, which are identical in AB, but separate in A Bn- One is "R £ is
A-secured in <R = M, ...". The other is given by the
0

5.11. DEFINITION. The redex R £ is absorbed in <R = -- >■ ... if

3n {R}/ (R = 0.
n

<R/{r }

{r }/ (R—0
n

Note that in the example above the normal redex R, although not A-
secured in (R , is absorbed by <R . S o we have in A Bn:
qn qn

R A-secured in <R => R absorbed in <R.

V

(Proof of =»: immediately by the PM Lemma 3.7.)

292

Now the analogue of Lemma 1.11.5 becomes:

5.12. LEMMA. Let <R = M^ --»- M„ -- ► ... b e a quasi-normal reduction in X3n

----- qn 0 1 •
and R £ M^ a normal (3- o r n .) r e d e x . T h e n :

R is absorbed in <R
qn

PROOF. CASE 1. R is a B-redex. Let XQ be the head-A of R.

During the reduction <R , new n-redexes can be created whose A's are
qn
< Aq , by erasure of "obstructing variables", i.e. variable occurrences
x e FV(A) in H = Ax.Ax, obstructing H to be an ri-redex. Note that it is im­
possible that new B-redexes are created whose X's are < A .
In <R there can only be finitely many steps in which such a newly
qn
created ri-redex is contracted, since there are only finitely many symbols
< Aq and contraction of an A-redex < R diminishes their number.
These n~steps may demolish the B-redex R, by erasure of the argument
of R, essentially as in the following example:

,--- *
<R = Az. (A_x. (Ay.I) z) z ("obstructing variable")
qn ^ ✓
*y B r

(newly created n~ A z.( ^x.I)z

redex-A to the left
of X0)

As soon as this happens (*), we are through by the PM Lemma for A-

residuals (3.7); for, taking the projection of {r } the PM Lemma says that
this projection must consist of B-steps whose A's trace back to A^. But as
there are no ^q 's i-n B~ reaex-position at moment (*) , this projection must
be empty. I.e. R is absorbed in
qn
If this demolition of R does not happen, then after finitely many nor­
mal steps in it will be again R's turn to be a normal redex and to be
qn
contracted in the next normal step.

CASE 2 . R is an ri-redex. A similar argument as for case 1. □

 293

5.13. COROLLARY (Quasi-normalization theorem for A3n) •

Ouasi-normal reductions are normalizing.

PROOF. Analogous to the proof for A3. □

6. COFINAL 3n-REDUCTIONS

6.1. DEFINITION. Let <R be a finite or infinite 3n~reduction. Then <R is

called (A-)secured iff every redex in <R is (A-)secured (Def.5.9).

6.2. REMARK. <R is A-secured => <R is secured; but not conversely:

EXAMPLE, (i) Let D = Azxy.zzyx and C = DD (see Example 5.10).

Then <R = Ax.Cyx —r»
p
Ax.Cxy -r*>
p
Ax.Cyx -r»
p

is secured but not A-secured because the ri-redex Ax.Cyx is not A-secured in
<R. Note the flip-flop effect: off-and-on the term appears and disappears as
Tl-redex.

EXAMPLE. (ii) A more subtle example of a secured but not A-secured reduction
is given in 6.4; there the A-redex stays an n-redex, but looses again and
again its quality as residual.

6.3. THEOREM. Let a be a reduction path in G (M) , the reduction graph of M.

Then:

a is A-secured => a is cofinal.

PROOF. Analogous to the proof of Theorem 1.12.3 for the 3-case, now using
the Parallel Moves Lemma 3.7 for A-residuals. □

Even though the PM Lemma fails for ordinary residuals, one could hope
to prove the stronger theorem "secured => cofinal" in a different way. But
also here residuals behave badly: we will now give an example of a secured
but not cofinal reduction. It is similar to the counterexample 2.3.1 to the
PM lemma, but iterated by means of a fixed point construction.
294

6.4. EXAMPLE of a secured but not cofinal reduction.

Let D E Axy.xx(Az.y(yz)) and E = DD.

4 E Aab.ab (Church's numeral.)

Now consider the infinite 3-reduction a:

e4 = E (Aa. Ab.ab)

[Ay.E( z.y(yz))](Aa.Ab.ab) __Ay ,

6

right Aa
E[Az.(Aa.Ab.ab)((Aa.Ab.ab)z)]
6

left Aa >
e [Az .(Aa.Ab.ab)(Ab.zb)]
6
/
\l Ab'
ECAz.Ab. (Ab1.zb1)b ]
i

E[Az.Ab.zb] -- etc.

The intuition behind this example is the same as for the counterex­
ample to the PM lemma; only, here it is arranged so that we get an infinite
reduction (which is necessary if one wants a non-cofinal reduction; a
finite, maximal reduction is cofinal by CR.) The crucial step is 3/ de­
stroying the n-residual Ab.(Ab'.zb')b of Ab.ab. The -.-. trace shows that
a is not A-secured.
It is easily checked that a is secured. However, a is not cofinal in
G(e 1 ). For, 1 E Aa.Ab.ab --- ► Aa.a E I, and now consider e 1 --- >• El. We
n n
claim that no 3n~reduct of El contains 4 as subterm. From this claim it
follows that a cannot be cofinal in G(El), because 1 keeps occurring in a.

PROOF of the claim. The proof consists of an application of the standardi­

zation theorem for 3n-reductions, and an amusing ad hoc argument.

Abbreviations: (i) A°B = Az.A(Bz)

(ii) E (0) E E
„ (n + l) _ , „(n ) , x
E = Ay.E (y°y)
,(1) , ( 2)
(So E ...)
 295

(iu) = i
ic» « ] = i[- ] . i1" 1.

Now suppose El — — » C[t], for some context <C[ ]. By the Standardiza-

Bn
tion theorem, we may suppose that this reduction is standard. Hence it
proceeds as follows:

El
Cm] E (n)I[m] ■*> c [ l] ,
El
3n

where the latter reduction — -— » does not affect (operate in) E , be-
pH
cause the whole reduction is standard; and because E K contains no as 1
subterm (as can easily be checked), we can write

C[l] H E (n)®-[1].

So we must have — — » C[l]. (*)

Bn
This is however impossible. To show this, we need first a

DEFINITION. M is simple iff

VN £ M FV(N) has at most one element.

Now 11 = Xzx.zx is not simple, whereas for all m, is simple.

Further it is a matter of routine to prove that the set of simple terms is
closed under Bn-reductions.
Hence (*) is impossible. This proves the claim. □

6.4.1. REMARK. The use of the Standardization theorem is not essential here
it could be replaced by 'Postponement of n-reductions' (Lemma 4.13.1) and
Standardization for XB-

6.5. KNUTH—GROSS-REDUCTIONS IN XBn-CALCULUS?

While the definition of Knuth-Gross reduction in XB-calculus (in 1.12)

is perfectly natural, it is no longer so in XBn~calculus. For consider the
following naive definition:
"Let = M_ -- »- M„ -- > ... -- > M be a reduction such that
0 1 n
(i) in every step a residual (in the usual sense) of a B~or n-redex in
is contracted, and
(ii) <R is maximal with this property, i.e. contains no residual of a
296

redex R in M^.
Then we say M ---- y N, in words:

N is the Knuth-Gross reduct of M.M

However, N is not uniquely determined now. Example:

<R = Ax. f A v . a v ^ x — — — y Ax. ax

Both 2 are complete 8n-developments of the total set of redexes of

Ax.(Ay.ay)x.

It is possible, using 3n-terms (see 5.05), to define Knuth-Gross-re-

duction for A3n-calculus with the required properties. But the definition
is not entirely straightforward; it is not immediately clear what, in that
treatment, the 'total set of redexes of M ' (= 'total 3ri-underlining of
M q ) is. This is worked out in BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP, VOLKEN [76]
Chapter II.

Turning to A-residuals does not help here, since FD fails for them,
as shown in 2.4.1.(iv).
Therefore we will not consider Knuth-Gross-reductions in A8n-calcuius
here. We will however consider an alternative concept, which might be just
as useful.

6.5.i. DEFINITION.
(i) M — -— y N iff N is the Knuth-Gross reduct (w.r.t. A8) of M.
Ge
(ii) M — -— y N iff N is the n-normal form of M.
G
n
(iii) M — — > N iff 3l M — — ► L — — y N.
G6n G6 Gn
REMARK. In (ii), N is uniquely determined, by CR for n-reductions.

Now we will prove the following theorem; before giving the proof an
immediate Corollary is mentioned.

6.5.2. THEOREM. Let be an infinite $T)-reduction in which infinitely many

— y -'steps' occur and infinitely many — — y - steps *.
'o G
17
p Then (R is cofinal.
 297

6.5 . 3 . COROLLARY, (i) Let <R = M(

0 G
Bn Bn Bn
Then (R is cofinal.
(ii) Quasi-G reductions, i.e. reductions in which infinitely many G -
Bn Bn
steps occur, are cofinal.

PROOF of theorem 6.5.2. Let (R be as in the theorem. Note that replacing an

initial segment of (R by an arbitrary reduction, yields a similar reduction.

(*)
Let R c M q be a or n~redex. We claim that R is absorbed in <R (see
def. 5.11, or the figure.)

CASE 1. R is a B-redex. Let M M , = M — r-5

n+k n B n+1 B 6 n+k
be the first G -'step' in <R. Then <R. {r }/m is a complete
B 1 0 n
B-development, by Propositions 5.1 and 5.3. (i); and it is a well-known fact
that therefore <R, is 'absorbed' by M — r- M . , i.e. that
1 n Go n+k
(R./M M . = 0.
1 n n+k '
(For a p A o f of this fact see BARENDREGT, BERGSTRA, KLOP, VOLKEN [76],
Chapter II.)

CASE 2. R is an n_^edex. Replace B by n in the figure above. Now (R^ = 0

because M , is an n-normal form by definition of — -— »■ .
n+k G rr
This proves the claim.
The remainder of the proof follows from (*
*) and is similar to the
proof of Theorem 1.12.3.
□
298

REFERENCES

ACZEL, P., [78] (cit.122,123,126,130,131,132,133,141), A General Church-

Rosser Theorem, Preprint, Manchester, July 1978.

BAETEN, J. & M. BOERBOOM, [79] (cit.243), Q can be anything it shouldn't

be, Indag. Math. 41 (1979) p.111-120.

BARENDREGT, H.P. [71] (cit.4,8), Some Extensional Term Models for Combina­
tory Logics and X-calculi, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht
(1971) .

BARENDREGT, H.P., [74] (cit.195), Pairing without conventional restraints,

Z. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 20 (1974) p.289-306.

BARENDREGT, H.P., [75] (cit.197), Open Problems, A-Calculus and Computer

Science Theory, Proc. Rome Conf. 1975 (ed. C. Bohm) Lecture
Notes in Computer Science 37, Springer p.367-370.

BARENDREGT, H.P., [76] (cit.9,46), A global representation of the recursive

functions in the X-calculus, Theoretical Computer Science 3
(1976) p.225-242.

BARENDREGT, H.P. [77] (cit.24,141), The type free lambda calculus. Hand­
book of Math. Logic, Barwise (ed.) North Holland, Amsterdam
(1977) p.1092-1132.

BARENDREGT, H.P., [80] (cit.17,86,108,114,141,175,216), The Lambda Calculus,

its Syntax and Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam. To be publish
ed 1980.

BARENDREGT, H.P.; J. BERGSTRA? J.W. KLOP and H. VOLKEN, [76] (cit.30,32,75,

116,256,283,296,297), Some notes on lambda reduction, in: Degrees
reductions and representability in the lambda calculus, Preprint
nr.22, Univ. of Utrecht 1976, p.13-53.

BARENDREGT, H.P.; J. BERGSTRA; J.W. KLOP and H. VOLKEN, [76*], Representa­

bility in lambda algebras, Indag. Math., series A, vol. 79(5),
Dec. 1976, p.377-387.

BARENDREGT, H.P.; J. BERGSTRA; J.W. KLOP and H. VOLKEN, [77] (cit.116),

Degrees of sensible lambda theories, J. Symbolic Logic 43 (1978)
p.45-55.
 299

BERGSTRA, J.A. and J.W. KLOP, [77]r Invertible terms in the lambda calculus,
Preprint 58, Univ. of Utrecht 1977. To be published in Theor.
Comp. Sci. 1980

BERGSTRA, J.A. and J.W. KLOP, [78] (cit.75), Strong Normalization and per­
petual reductions in the lambda calculus, Preprint Nr.99, Univ.
of Utrecht 1978.

BERGSTRA, J.A. and J.W. KLOP, [79], Church-Rosser strategies in the lambda
calculus, Theoretical Computer Science 9 (1979) p.27-38.

BERRY, G. and J.J. LEVY, [79] (cit.11,93,104,216), Minimal and Optimal Com­
putations of Recursive Programs, JACM 26,1 (1979).

BOHM, C., [66] (cit.8), The CUCH as a Formal and Description Language, in:
Formal Language Description Languages for Computer Programming
(ed. T.B. Steel), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1966).

DE BRUIJN, N.G. [72] (cit.4), Lambda calculus notation with nameless dum­
mies, a tool for automatic formula manipulation, Indag. Math.
34 (1972) p.381-392.

CHURCH, A., [41] (cit.72,131), The calculi of Lambda Conversion, Princeton

University Press, Princeton 1941.

CHURCH, A., [56] (cit.135), Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Princeton

University Press, Princeton 1956.

CROSSLEY, J.N. (ed.), [75] (cit. vii) , Reminiscences of logicians, (reported

by J.N. Crossley) in: Algebra and Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathe­
matics 450, Springer, p.1-63.

CURRY, H.B. & R. FEYS, [58] (cit.17,113,135,136,252), Combinatory Logic,

Vol. I, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1958.

CURRY, H.B.; J.R. HlNDLEY and J.P. SELDIN, [72] (cit.8,17), Combinatory
Logic, Vol. II, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1972.

VAN DAALEN, D.T., [80], The language theory of Automath, Ph.D. Thesis,
Eindhoven 1980.

FEFERMAN, S., [80] (cit.197), Constructive theories of functions and clas­

ses, in: Logic Colloquium 1978 (eds. Boffa, van Dalen, McAloon)
North-Holland, Amsterdam. To appear 1980.
300

HINDLEY, J.R., [69] (cit.44), An abstract form of the Church-Rosser theorem,

I, J. Symbolic Logic 34 (1969) p.545-560.

HINDLEY, J.R., [74] (cit.44), An abstract Church-Rosser theorem, II: appli­

cations, J. Symbolic Logic 39 (1974) p.1-21.

HINDLEY, J.R., [77] (cit.253), The equivalence of complete reductions,

Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 229 (1977), p.227-248.

HINDLEY, J.R., [78] (cit.84,131,133,174,191,249,264), Standard and normal

reductions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (1978).

HINDLEY, J.R., [78'] (cit.93,141), Reductions of residuals are finite,

Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 240 (1978), p.345-361.

HINDLEY, J.R., [78"] (cit. ix), The Church-Rosser theorem and Schroer's Fi­
nite Developments theorem, unpublished typed notes, Swansea 1978.

HINDLEY, J.R.; B. LERCHER and J.P. SELDIN, [72] (cit.17), Introduction to

Combinatory Logic, Cambridge University Press, London 1972.

HUET, G., [78] (cit.44,46,47,52,121,129,131,133,165,195,240), Confluent Re­

ductions : Abstract Properties and Applications to Term Rewriting
Systems, 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
(1977), p.30-45. Revised version: IRIA report, Jan. 1978.

HUET, G. & J.J. LEVY, [79] (cit.141,174,175,190), Call by Need Computations

in Non-ambiguous Linear Term Rewriting Systems, Rapport Laboria
359, IRIA, Aout 1979.

HUET, G. & D.C. OPPEN, [80] (cit. x), Equations and rewrite rules: a survey,
Technical Report CSL-111 (Jan. 1980), SRI International.

HYLAND, J.M.E., [73] (cit.38,40,43), A simple proof of the Church-Rosser

theorem, Type script, Oxford University 1973.

HYLAND, J.M.E., [76] (cit.24), A syntactic characterization of the equality

in some models of the X-calculus, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 12
(1976) p.361-370.

KLOP, J.W., See also BARENDREGT et alii, and BERGSTRA-KLOP.

KLOP, J.W., [75], On solvability by Xl-terms, Proc. Rome Conf. 1975 (see
LEVY [75]), p.342-345.
 301

KLOP, J.W., [77] (cit.202), A counterexample to the Church-Rosser property

for X-calculus + DMM -> M, Typed note, University of Utrecht 1977.

KLOP, J.W., [79], A counterexample to the Church-Rosser property for lambda

calculus with Surjective Pairing, Preprint 102, Univ. of Utrecht
1979.

KLOP, J.W., [80], Reduction cycles in Combinatory Logic, in: Festschrift

in honour of H.B. Curry, eds. Hindley, Seldin; Academic Press.
To appear 1980.

LEVY, J.J., [75] (cit.27,75,88), An algebraic interpretation of the AftK-

calculus and a labelled X-calculus, A-Calculus and Computer
Science Theory, Proc. Rome Conf. 1975 (ed. C. Bohm) Lecture
Notes in Computer Science 37, Springer Verlag 1975, p.147-165.

LEVY, J.J., [78] (cit.27,58,75,84,89,90,92,93,94,95,97,98,103,104), Reduc­

tions correctes et optimales dans le lambda-calcul, These d'Etat,
U. de Paris VII, Jan. 1978.

MANNA, Z., [74] (cit.11,117), Mathematical Theory of Computation, McGraw-

Hill 1974.

MICALI, S., [78] (cit.116), The characterization of cofinal strategies in

A^-calculus. Preprint, Istituto Matematico Guido Castelnuovo-
Roma, May 1978.

MITSCHKE, G., [76], X-Kalkul, 8-Konversion und axiomatische Rekursions-

theorie, Habilit. Schr., Preprint Nr.274, Technische Hochschule
Darmstadt 1976.

MITSCHKE, G., [77] (cit.224,225), Discriminators in Combinatory Logic and

X-calculus, Preprint Nr.336, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt 1977

MITSCHKE, G., [79], The standardization theorem for the X-calculus, Z. Math.
Logik Grundlag. Math. 25 (1979) p.29-31.

MORRIS, J.H., [68] (cit. v) , Lambda calculus models of programming languages

Ph.D. Thesis, M.I.T., Cambridge (1968).

NEDERPELT, R.P., [73] (cit.53,75,76,144,157,158,159), Strong normalization

for a typed lambda calculus with lambda structured types,
Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven 1973.
302

NEWMAN, M.H.A., [42] (cit.46,169), On theories with a combinatorial defini­

tion of "equivalence", Annals of Math. 43, Nr.2 (1942) p.223-243.

O'DONNELL, M . , [77] (cit.116,140,172,197,232), Computing in Systems De­

scribed by Equations, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 58,
Springer Verlag, 1977.

POTTINGER, G., [78], Proofs of the Normalization and Church-Rosser Theorems

for the typed X-calculus, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
Vol.XIX, Nr.3, July 1978, p.445-451.

POTTINGER, G., [79], The Church-Rosser Theorem for the Typed X-calculus with
Extensional Pairing, Preprint, March 1979, Carnegie-Mellon Uni­
versity, Pittsburgh.

PRAWITZ, D., [71] (cit.127,128), Ideas and results in Proof Theory, in:
Second Scand. Logic Symp., Fenstad (ed.), North-Holland,
Amsterdam 1971, p.235-307.

ROSEN, B.K., [73] (cit.133), Tree-Manipulating Systems and Church-Rosser

Theorems, JACM 20: 1 (1973), p.160-187.

SCHONFINKEL, M., [24], Uber die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik, Math.
Annalen 92 (1924) p.305-316. Translated as: On the building blocks
of mathematical logic, in: From Frege to Godel, ed.
J. van Heyenoort, Harvard Univ. Press, 1967, p.355-366.

SCHUTTE, K., [77] (cit.75), Proof Theory, Springer-Verlag 1977.

SCOTT, D., [77] (cit.227) , Logic and programming languages, Comm. ACM.
vol.20 (1977), p.634-641.

SCOTT, D., [79] (cit. vi,vii), Lambda calculus: some models, some philosophy,
Preprint, Oxford University 1979.

STAPLES, J., [75] (cit.44,47,50,197), Church-Rosser theorems for replace­

ment systems, in: Algebra and Logic (ed. J.N. Crossley) Lecture
Notes in Mathematics 450, Springer 1975, p.291-307.

STAPLES, J., [77] (cit.45), A class of replacement systems with simple op­
timality theory, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. Vol.17 (1977) Nr.3,
p.335-350.

STENLUND, S., [72] (cit.17,133), Combinators, X-terms and proof theory,

Reidel, Dordrecht 1972.
 303

TAIT, W., [71] (cit.172,173), Normal form theorem for barrecursive functions
of finite type, in: Second. Scand. Logic Symp., Fenstad (ed.),
North-Holland, Amsterdam 1971 p.353-367.

TROELSTRA,,A.S. (ed.) [73] (cit.75), Metamathematical Investigations of

Intuitionistic Arithmetic and Analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathe­
matics 344, Springer Verlag 1973.

DE VRIJER R.C., [75] (cit.75), Big trees in a X-calculus with X-expressions

as types, Proc. Rome Conf. 1975 (see LEVY [75]), p.252-271.

DE VRIJER R.C., [80] (cit.227), Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven, To appear 1980.

WADSWORTH C.P., [76] (cit.24), The relation between computational and de-
notational properties for Scott's D^-models of the lambda-cal­
culus, SIAM Jour. Comput. 5 (1976) p.488-521.

WELCH, P.] [., [75] (cit.88), Continuous semantics and inside-out reductions,
Proc. Rome Conf. 1975 (see LEVY [75]) p.122-146.
304

LIST OF NOTATIONS

The list of notations is divided in

(1) Abbsievtations
(2) Notations concerning terms
(2.1) [/arlables and metavariables
(2.2) Constants
FsLe.que.ntli/ occurring constants
(2.3) Symbols
(2.4) Terms
Frequently occurring terms
(2.5 Contexts
(2.6) Subterms
(2.7) Redexes
(2.8) Labels
(2.9) Trees
(2.10) 1Norms 1

Notations concerning reductions

(3.1) Reductions
Reduction arrom
(3.2) Reduction systems
related to \ and cl

related to s ' s
cr

(1) Abbreviations
ARS Abstract Reduction Systems 44
CL Combinatory Logic 11
CP, CP1 Cofinality property 51
CR Church-Rosser property (or TheoremI 45,150
+
CR strong version of CR 63,68,163,225
251
CRS Combinatory Reduction Systems 120
DL, DL', DL" Decreasing labels (and versions) 177
DP Disjointness property 38
DR Decreasing redexes- 180
 305

FB Finitely branching 52
FD (Theorem of) Finite Developments 30,32,37,38,144
f .p. finitely presented 165
Inc Increasing 52
Ind Inductive 52
NE Non-erasing 164,170
NF Normal Form property 47
Set of normal forms 6
n. f . normal form 6,46
PM (Lemma of) Parallel Moves 69,163,254,262

pp a, 3
a Postponement of 3-steps after a-steps 45
RPS Recursive Program Schemes 11
SN Strong Normalization 6,46
TRS Term Rewriting System 121,131,133
UN Unicity of Normal forms 46
NCR Weak Church-RosSer property 45
WCR+ strong version of WCR 142
WCR1 restricted variant of WCR 169
>1
WCR restricted variant of WCR 169
<1
WCR Subcommutative 45
WCR restricted variant of WCR 47
n,m
WF Well-foundedness property 52
WIN Weak Innermost Normalization 172
WN Weak Normalization 6,46
WN |j Weak Normalization w.r.t. ]1 178

(2) Notations aoncoAning tesim*

(2.1) VaAiablzA and meXavaAtablzA
r 3.flD r C r ...,xfy,z variables 1
Var set of variables 1,121
A,B,C,..• (informal) metavariables, ranging 1
X,Y,Z over set of terms
zn formal metavariables 121
Mvar set of metavariables 121
[x] abstraction of variable x 121
FV(M) set of occurrences of free variables of
M 164
306

_1
—1

'll
substitution of N for x
X

2
1
1

vary over meta-terms 123

(2.2) Constant*
A , B , C , V , P , constants 1
0,R,S
Vfi2.qu2.vi£JLy oclc.u/uujiq constants:
constants in definable extensions of A 9,10
sL
J,K,S basic combinators in CL 12
P pairing constant 79
pairing operation 77,79,151
0 constants in CRS1s 121
R recursor 126
J iterator 130
0,S zero, successor 126,130
6 Church1s 6-rules 131,132
V used for non-left-linear rules 197
versions of non-left-linear constants 197

(^'VV
W Ps
(Surjective) Pairing 127,130,195
E inert constant 198
if .. then .. else ..branching operation 131,197,210,248
8 Bar recursion operator 172
branching operation 209,248
*
A head-A of frozen redex 84

Q* head-constant of frozen redex 151

*
H H with marked head-constant 151
* marker denoting frozen redex 264

(2.3) Symbol*
S £ M symbol s occurs in term M 3
Symb (M) set of symbols occurring in M 18
s, t vary over symbol occurrences 19
s t descendant relation for symbols 19
s < t s is to the left of t 88,113,264
[ ] abstraction brackets 121
 307

(2.4) TeAm&
Ter(A),Ter(Al) set of A-terms, Al-terms 1
Ter(E) set of E-terms 121
Mter(E) set of meta-terms of E 123
~n
MN MN...N (n times N) 106
MN MN,...N (for N = N , ...N ) 1
1^ m 1 m
[M,N] 151
M1 term M plus labeling I 18
oo(M) M has an infinite reduction 107
CR(M) M is CR 233
Ffie.que.ntZy occuvung tesute
Y Curry's fixed point combinator 7
Turing's fixed point combinator 7
yt
U) Ax. xx 6
n mm 6
i Ax.x 6
K Axy .x 6
KM Ay .M (yiFV(M)) 107
<M> Ax.xM (xiFV(M)) 200
<M,N> Ax.xMN (x^FV(MN)) 9

(2.5) Conte.)Ct6
(E[ ] context having one 'hole' □ 3
<C[M] result of substituting M in □ 3
□ trivial context 2
d-C fa•a/ -] n-ary context (i.e. having n holes) 213
/•a •t 1 the head-context of a term 213

(2.6) SubteAm6
M C N M is a subterm of N 3
H c H' H is a submetaterm of H* 182
M £ N M is a proper sub term of N 213
(i.e. M c N & M f N)
M E N syntactical equality 4
M c N M occurs at place cr in N 128
-a
M £ Subp -j(N) 176
53i
S
U|
i
—i
_i

M is a left subterm of N 182

M N
M C N M is an exterior subterm of N 186
~e
308

M c. N M is an interior subterm of N 186

interferes with H 2 130
H1 5 H 2
Sub (M) set of subterm occurrences in M 18
w
■g

set of memorized subterms of M 176

i— i
i— i

descendant relation for subterms 19

S1 — S2
the headsymbol of is to the left of 113
S 1 < S2
that of
M e G0 (N) M is a subterm of a B-reduct of N 213
p

(2.7) Redzxti

R/R fRj r•■•fS redexes 4, 252

R contraction of redex R 4
Arg(R) argument of redex R 59
JR , JR (M) set of redex occurrences (in M) 66, 179
lmc (<R) leftmost contracted redex in <R 85, 265
lmCg (<R) leftmost contracted B-redex in <R 278
P(H) r-redex, if r = H H' and p is some 126
valuation
R R' descendant relation for redexes 180
(R1 is a residual of R)
R --- ► R' R 1 is created by the contraction of R 180

(2.8) Label*
M1 term M plus labeling I 18
multiset of ordinals 63
.... V
(R1 labeled reduction M1 -> ... 99

y
#
well-ordering of multisets
ordinal labeling
178
180
CD concatenation of all labels in I 183
(degree of redex p(H1))
a x H H in which every subterm has label a 183
A (aciN) labeled A in Bn-diagram 257
a ~
Ind (<R) union of labels of A's contracted in (R 260

(2.9) JK1XM
t(M) term formation tree of M 78
t (M) , T' (M) alternative term formation trees of M 123, 184
(not to be confused with the T-(or t ’-)
translation of M)
 309

BT(M) Bohm Tree of M 216

A = V
s \

(2.10) 'Nottm'

1M | weight of M e Ter(E ) 34
— w
ordinal assigned to M 177
length of M 203
IIMil multiset assigned to M 178
£(m ) length of M 179
l«l total number of symbols in <R 203
1r | total number of symbols in T 203
|m Id max. length of ^-chains in M 233
P-norm of M 233
IIm "d
d(H) depth of H 238
11(Rll 282

(3) NotcutcoviA conceAyUng Ae.ducJU,onA

(3.1) Reductajovl6
<r reduction (i.e. finite or infinite 4
sequence of reduction steps)
0 empty reduction 61
V reduction diagram 58
reduction diagram determined by 63

fll'fl2
concatenation of (appropriate) reduc­ 69
fll * a2
tions
projection of <R^ by (R^ 69
V«2
{r } reduction consisting of the contraction 69
of redex R
(R ,(R standard reduction for (R 85, 265
s st
p(&) <R/{lmc (<R) } 85, 265

«1 ~L fl2
&1 f&2 are Ldvy-equivalent 89

®1 ~ R2
^l/(^2 ^ave t^ie same first and last term 93
r&2 are permutation equivalent 93
fll wfl2
other equivalences between reductions 93,94
~s'~S'~R' ^ B
RED (M) set of finite reductions starting 92
with. M
310

'meta-reduction1 of reductions 93, 190

{«■/«' * = * » <&> 107
labeled reduction M1 -* ... 99
r (A A A A A A ) conversion 102,203,232
«(n) n-th term in <R 113
(«) initial segment (of length n) of <R 113
n
(«) <R- (<R) 113
n n
Red(E) set of reduction rules of E 120
r reduction rule 126
labeled versions of r 138
rA
r underlined version of r 139
r plus memory 154
rr,]
-i
r converse of r 203
<3(a) reduction graph of a 50,115
G (M) 3-reduction graph of M 115
G s (M) E-reduction graph of M 162
G|( m ) condensed 3-reduction graph of M 213

Rzdu.cJU.on ajinom

a-reduction 3
a
syntactical equality 3, 4
3-reduction 3
B
3-convertibility 4
3
— » transitive reflexive closre of --- >- 4, 44
reflexive closure of --- >• 44
R
contraction of redex R 4
reduction in CL 13
translation from X to CL 13
T(M) f t ' (M) t— , t *-normal form of M (i.e. 13
t— , t 1-translation of M)
descendant relation 19,r139,180
labeled 3-reduction 19
underlined 3-reduction 23
Hyland-Wadsworth labeled 3-reduction 24
HW
Ldvy-labeled 3-reduction 28
n-ary ^-reduction ('fast* 3~reduction)_ 37
 311

or -**- converse of ---- >■ 44

a
in a diagram: existential meaning 45
empty step in a diagram 61
k-reduction ('forgetful1 reduction) 79,153
k
k (M) k-normal form of M 79,176
shift reduction 79,152,154
shift
meta-reduction 93,190
leftmost reduction 113,204
^ .in* '
Knuth-Gross reduction 117
KG
creation of redexes 180
innermost reduction 180
i .m.
min M,N have a common reduct 198
---- > head reduction 213
h
derivation 213
der
reductions in CLn 241,242
n
n-reduction 249

Bn-reduction 249
Bn
propagation of reduction steps in a 257
diagram
Knuth-Gross reductions in ABn 296
B n Bn
(3.2) R e d u c t io n AyAtemb
A, B Abstract Reduction Systems 44
A c B A is a substructure of B 50
fioZouto^d t o A a n d CL
A, AB A- (or AB-) calculus 5
Al Al-calculus 5
AP definable extension of A 10
CL Combinatory Logic 11
r<

indexed (or labeled) A-calculus 18

underlined A-calculus 23
\p underlined Ap-calculus 23
XHW Hyland-Wadsworth A-calculus 24
xL Levy's A-calculus 27
xT typed A-calculus 27
xL,p
restricted AL 29
312

XB fast XB-calculus 37
m
XB underlined version of XB 38
— m m
XIP definable extension of XI 72
X-calculus plus pairing 79
h.i
Xl-calculus plus pairing 81
XIC,]
CL t typed CL 172
CLD CL plus black boxes 241
Xri, X3n Xri- (or XBn-) calculus 250
XBn double underlined version of XBn 283
fi£late.d to c r s 's
I |= p E has the property P 25
(P is true in E)
l underlined version of E 32,139
e E plus underlining and weights 33
—w
E Combinatory Reduction System 120
E^ is a substructure of E^ 121
E1 £ E2
direct sum of CRS's E^,E^ 134
E1 * E2
labeled version of E 138
M
>

E where substitution is 'frozen1 142

Ef
Ef version of E in function notation 240
Ef plus fast B-reduction 142
Ef8
_1
—1

E plus memory 151

M
1
1
■l
W

variant of E^- -j 175

1
—l
_i

T Gfidel's T 179
A^ (i = k,s,h) non-left-linear CRS's 233

a |2) (i = k,s,h) binary versions of A_^ (i = k,s,h) 239

 313

INDEX

Absorbed 291 closed

absorption 251 diagram 164
Abstract Reduction System (ARS) 44 meta-term 123
abstraction (A-) 1 rule 166
abstractor 3 term 2
adequate labeling 99 under projections 168, 281
alphabet of CRS 121 under reduction, substitution 224
a-conversion 3 cofinal 51, 293
ancestor 19, 139 cofinality property (CP) 51
anti standard pair 96, 190 coincidence 251
a-reduction 3 color degree 39
application 1, 121 colors 39
argument 5 Combinatorial Completeness (CC)
arity 10, 120, 121 7, 16, 247
associate 160 combinators 11
association to the left 1 Combinatory Logic (CL) 11
Combinatory Reduction Systems (CRS)
Bar recursion operator 172
119, 120, 121
bar recursive terms 172
commutes 45
B^-reduction 19 commutes weakly 44
6 -reduction 24 complete development (c. dev.)
HW
6 -reduction 28 66, 140, 252
L
B-normal 288 concatenation 69
branching operation 197, 209, 246
condensed reduction graph 213, 215
B-redex 3 confluent 46
B-reduction 3 conservative extension 50, 220
black box 240 consistent 50
Bohm tree 216 constants 1, 126
bound 2 construction of reduction diagrams 58
bounded predicate P (for AL ) 29 context 2
contracted in 84
Church-Rosser property 45
contraction 4
Church-Rosser Theorem 57, 68, 150,
contractum 4
163, 224, 225, 251
contraction scheme 126, 131, 132
Church-Rosser, weakly (WCR) 45
314

convertibility 4 extension 50
conversion 102, 203 external label 186
(a-) 3 external subterm 186
creation of redexes 25, 140
Fast development 38
creator redex 188, 191
^Finite Developments 30, 37, 39, 163, 256
Curry's fixed point combinator (Y)
finitely branching (FB) 52
P-chain 233 finitely presented (f.p.) 165
decreasing labeling (DL) 177 fixed points 7
decreasing redex labeling (DR) 180 fixed point combinator
definable extensions 9 Curry's 7
definable extension of Al 72 Turing's 7
definition by cases 130 with parameters 8
degree 180, 185 Fixed Point Theorem 7, 224
of 8 -redex 24 multiple 9
HW
of 8 -redex 28 flat combinator 12
L
6-rules of Church 131, 132 forgetful reduction rule 153
depth 238 formation tree 78
derived terms 213 t (M) 78
descendant 19, 139 T(M) 123
developments T '(M) 184
complete 66 free variables 2
fast 37 frozen 91, 152
Finite 30, 37, 39, 163, 256 function notation 122, 240
in CRS 140 function part 5
in A, AP FV (M) 2
diminishing 239 FV (M) 164
direct sum © 134
Godel's T 75, 179
P-norm 233
good 34
P-preredex 233
graph, reduction - 50
Elementary diagram (e.d.) 59
Head normal form (h.n.f.) 213
empty step 59
head reduction 16, 213
equivalence of reductions 89, 93
height of Ldvy-label 29
erasing step 107
Hindley-Rosen Lemma 47
erasure 72, 251
homomorphisms from AL 29
expansion 274
Increasing (Inc) 52 L-labeled CRS 183
index(ing) 18 lmc (<R) 85, 265
induced concept of descendant 22 A-abstractioyi 1
inductive (Ind) 52 A(a)-reductions 131, 132, 133, 136
inert 10 A-(or A3-) calculus 5
infinite term 107 A-(or AB-) calculus 23
initial labeling 19, 138 All-calculus 215
innermost redex 76 Al-terms 1
inside-out reduction 88 AL-calculus 27
interdefinabilities 200 A-path 257, 258
interference 129, 130 AP-calculus 10
internal label 186 AP-calculus 23
internal labeling 140, 141 A-residuals 254
internal subterm 186 A-secured 290
Iterator (J) 130, 179 A-standard 264
x
A -calculus 27
k-expansion 153
k-normal form 79 Marker * 84
Knuth-Gross reduction 117, 295 memory part 151
k-reduction 79 meta-metavariables 123
meta-reduction 96, 190
labeling 18
meta-terms 123
adequate 99
metavariables 12, 120
initial 138
multiple fixed point theorem 9
strongly adequate 108
multiplicity 33
labeled 3-reduction 18
multiset 63
labeled CRS 137
labels 18 Nederpelt's Lemma 47
Hyland-Wadsworth (HW) 24 Newman's Lemma 47
Ldvy- 27, 182 noetherian 46
multiple 24 non-ambiguous 119, 130
left-linear 119, 126 non-erasing 164, 170
leftmost redex 16, 113 normal form (n.f.) 6
le ft-normal 189 normal form property (NF) 220, 228
Ldvy-equivalent 89 normal redex 113, 279
leftmost contracted redex normal reduction 113, 280
(lmc) 85, 265 Normalization Theorem 114, 194, 290
LdvyfS' A-calculus (AL J 27 normalizing
316

weakly 6, 46 reduction
strongly 6, 46 a- 3
3- 3
Pairing 130
3- 23
Surjective 127, 133, 195
BA- 19
Parallel Moves Lemma (PM) 69, 163
for A3n 254, 262
6h w - 24
eT - 28
permutation equivalence 96
equivalence of 89
P.-redexes 10
i eventually leftmost 113
Postponement of 3 after a(PP ) 45
a, 3 head 16
P-normal form 78
inside-out 88
Postponement of n-reductions 278
k- 79
projection 69
Knuth-Gross 117
Proof Theory 127, 133
labeled 3- 18
propagation 61, 257
leftmost 16
proper indexing 182
maximal 113
proper rule 21
normal 113
quasi-normal 113
Quasi-Knuth-Gross reduction 118
secured 115
quasi-normal reduction 113
special 108
Quasi-normalization Theorem (A3n)
standard 84
293
reduction by cases 224, 225
Recursive Program Schemes (RPS) reduction diagram 58
11, 133 reduction graph 50
recursor (P) 75, 122, 126, 133 reduction relation 126
redex reduction rule 120, 126
3- 3 regular 129, 131, 133,
contracted in (ft 84 replacement system 44
creation of 25 residuals 19, 139
frozen 91 for A3n 252
head 213 A- 254
I-, K - , S - 12
Safe 3-redex 4
leftmost 113
safe
normal 113
redex 14
P.- 10
l
reduction 14
safe 14
secured
secured 114
 317

redex 114, 290 trivial e.d. 62

reduction 115, 290 trivial step 59
shift normal form 154 Turing's fixed point combinator (Y^)
shift rule 152 7
simultaneous substitution 5 typed A-calculus 27
singleton redex 182 tracing subterms 18, 257
special 203
Underlined reduction system 32
special reduction 108
Underlining 22
standard reduction 84, 190, 264
reduced 23
standardization diagram 85
Unicity of normal forms (UN) 46,
Standardization Theorem 87, 90, 101
231, 220
103, 193, 276
strongly normalizing (SN) 6
<1 Variables 1
subcommutative (WCR ) 45
Valuation 125
Sub (M) 18
Subj- -j(M) 176 Weak Innermost Normalization
submetaterm 182 (WIN) 172
substitution operator 2 weakly Church-Rosser (WCR) 45
substructure 50 weakly normalizing (WN) 6
subterm 3 weakly normalizing w.r.t. ||
subword 34 (WNj |) 177
Surjective Pairing (SP) 127, 133, weight 33
195
syntactical accident 92
syntactical equality 4

Term formation tree t(M) 78

t (M) 123
t '(M) 184
Term Rewriting Systems (TRS) 121, 131,
133
"too close together" 253
tracing in diagrams 258
tracing subterms 18, 257
transfinite induction 62
translation r, t ' 13
tree 78, 184, 123, 216
trivial context 3
318

SAMENVATTING

In de volgende bladzijden wil ik proberen de achtergrond en de inhoud van

dit proefschrift te schetsen; daarbij richt ik me vooral tot degenen die
niet bekend'zijn met het onderwerp. (Een nauwkeuriger beeld wordt gegeven
in de 'Introduction and Summary'.)
Er zijn ruwweg twee ingangen tot het onderwerp, de eerste van filoso-
fische aard ('Grondslagen van de Wiskunde') en de tweede van praktisch-toe-
gepaste aard ('Computer Science *).
Laten we beginnen met het grondslagen-aspect. Zoals bekend, kan de he-
le wiskunde (in zekere zin) beschreven worden d.m.v. de Verzamelingentheo-
rie (bijvoorbeeld het systeem ZF van Zermelo en Fraenkel), onder het motto
'alles is een verzameling*. Een concurrerende visie (qua aantal aanhangers
veruit in de minderheid) propageert als fundamenteel begrip niet 'verzame-
ling', maar *functie'. Een voorbeeld: de functie f: 3N -+ IN met f (x) =
2 2
= (x +l)x wordt genoteerd als Ax. (x +l)x, waarmee dus
2 3 2
f(3) = (Ax. (x +l)x) = (3+1)3 (het argument 3 wordt voor alle x-en gesub-
stitueerd). In de "pure" A-calcuius komen in eerste instantie geen natuur-
lijke getallen of operaties als 'kwadraat' voor; de enige objecten in kwes-
tie zijn de functies zelf, en de enige operatie is applicatie van een func­
tie f op zijn argument x; resultaat fx. Daarbij zijn we zeer liberaal: het
domein van zo'n functie is 'alles' en zelf-applicatie wordt dus niet ge-
schuwd. Zo is er bijv. een functie F = Axy.yx die zijn twee argumenten om-
keert: Fab = (Axy.yx)ab = ba. Merk op dat we zuinig zijn met haakjes en
niet F(a,b) schrijven; n-aire functies worden namelijk teruggebracht tot
unaire functies, via een simpele identificatie. (Bijv. de binaire functie
+ = A(x,y). x+y e (IN x]N ) IN kan geldentificeerd worden met de unaire
functie f = Ax.(Ay.x+y), afgekort tot Axy.x+y, d.w.z. de functie
f £ I 4 (IN -KIN ) met f (x) = Ay.x+y e IN M . Hierbij staat A -+ B voor de
verzameling functies van A naar B.)
Een ander voorbeeld is de functie D = Ax.xx die zijn argument verdub-
belt: Da = (Ax.xx)a = aa. Dit leidt tot een merkwaardig object, namelijk
DD; bij 'uitrekenen' komen we in een cykel: DD = (Ax.xx)D = DD. Natuurlijk
hebben we ook de 'gewone' compositie C van functies f, g; in plaats van
fog schrijven we Cfg. In feite is dus C = Axyz. x(yz); want dan inderdaad
Cfgx (= (fog)x) = f(gx).
Een van de opmerkelijkste feiten bij dit rekenen met 'A-termen' is dat
 319

elke functie F een vast punt p heeft, dus Fp = p. Namelijk, neem bij gegeven
F eenvoudig p = D (F°D) . Dan immers p = D (F°D) = (F°D) (F°D) = F (D (F°D) ) = Fp!
Deze zo eenvoudig af te leiden Fixed Point stelling in de A-calculus hangt
samen met Godel's Onvolledigheidsstelling en met een fundamentele stelling
in de Recursietheorie.
Bij de genoemde voorbeelden is het duidelijk dat er een zekere asym-
metrie zit in de gelijkheid (=); er is sprake van uitrekenen, reduceren ge-
naamd. Bijvoorbeeld, Da wordt gereduceerd tot aa; notatie: Da -+ aa. Meestal
bevat een A-term M verschillende onderdelen die gereduceerd kunnen worden
(zoals bijvoorbeeld ook de berekening van (3+2).(5+7) op verschillende ma-
nieren begonnen kan worden) en we kunnen de term M dus op verschillende ma-
nieren uitrekenen. A priori is het mogelijk dat er dan ook verschillende
'uitkomsten* gevonden worden, waarbij een 'uitkomst' (officieel: normaal-
vorm) een term is die niet verder gereduceerd kan worden. Dat zou, intui-
tief gesproken, niet in de haak zijn. Gelukkig zegt een fundamentele stel­
ling (van Church en Rosser) dat wanneer een term M op twee manieren een
aantal stappen gereduceerd wordt, zeg tot A en B, er verdere reducties zijn
die tot een gemeenschappelijk reduct C van A, B leiden:
M

En deze stelling garandeert (na nog een kort argument) de uniciteit van de
uitkomst, als die er tenminste is. (Bijv. de berekening van DD leidt niet
tot een uitkomst: DD -+ DD -+ ...)
Het probleem bij het bewijzen van deze Church-Rosser eigenschap is als
volgt. Als elk tweetal reductiestappeny^\^aangevuld zou kunnen worden tot
een 'tegel' O , zou het niet moeilijk zijn het gemeenschappelijk

reduct C te vinden; in bovenstaande figuur door 12 tegels te leggen. Helaas

zijn de tegels meestal van de vorm of ' t>i^VOOrbee'1'd;

en dan kan het plaveien om C te vinden gemakkelijk uit de hand lopen:

320

Deze "Church-Rosser* problematiek, en het al of niet eindigen ("norma-

liseren") van reducties, hangen nauw met elkaar samen en vormen het centra-
le thema van dit proefschrift.
De A-calculus werd in de dertiger jaren ontwikkeld. Er is een verwant
systeem, genaamd Combinatorische Logica (in 1924 ontdekt), dat even sterk
is als de A-calculus; de twee systemen zijn in zekere zin vertalingen van
elkaar. Alles wat A-calculus kan, voor de Grondslagen van de Wiskunde, kan
CL ook. Bovendien heeft CL het voordeel dat er geen gebonden variabelen
zijn (zoals de x in Ax.xx); filosofisch prettig want het is problematisch
wat gebonden variabelen eigenlijk "betekenen". In CL zijn er drie basis
combinatoren I, K, S met als regels voor reductie:

lx ■> x
Kxy -+ x
Sxyz (xz) (yz) .

Dus I is de Identieke "functie", K is de functie die Konstante functies

"maakt" (immers Kx is een functie met y •->- x voor all y) , en S doet iets dat
in feite op hetzelfde blijkt neer te komen als Substitutie in de A-calculus.
Substitutie in A-calculus wordt a.h.w. geelimineerd ten gunste van conca-
tenatie (simpelweg achter elkaar zetten) in CL, en het laatste is natuurlijk
een eenvoudiger operatie.
Een voorbeeld. De "combinator" SII doet hetzelfde als de verdubbelaar
D boven:

SI I x -»■ (lx) (lx) x(Ix) -»• xx.

CL heeft ook weer zijn nadelen: de beschrijving door een A-term van een
'rekenproces* is veel directer; de corresponderende combinator is veel in-
gewikkelder. Een voorbeeld van een typisch verschil in syntactisch gedrag:
het is niet moeilijk A-termen M te vinden zodat M met al zijn "reducten"
precies een reductie-*loop" vormt: M

In CL daarentegen genereert de aan-

wezigheid van een cyclische reductie er meteen oneindig veel in de reductie-
graph. (Dit is goed te zien bij de CL-vertaling (SII)(SII) van DD.)
We zouden kunnen zeggen dat CL en A-calculus een analyse geven van
rekenprocessen. Een CL- of A-term is eigenlijk een "programma", maar dan
 321

een in pure vorm, ontdaan van alle ‘syntactic sugar1 waaronder de essentie
van echte programma's soms schuil gaat. De A-calculus (of CL) is te zien
als een 1oer-programmeertaal1, waarin veel van de essentiele aspecten van
echte programmeertalen in pure vorm bestudeerd kunnen worden. (Zo bezien is
zelf-applicatie (FF) niet vreemd: een programma kan zichzelf als input heb-
ben.) Reductie-stappen zijn atomaire berekeningen, zoals in Turing machines
het opschuiven van de band, het veranderen van inwendige toestand, het druk-
ken van een symbool, etc., de atomaire handelingen zijn. (Alles wat een
Turing machine kan, kan CL of A-calculus ook.)
Hiermee zijn we terecht gekomen van het Grondslagenaspect op dat van
de Computer Science. Het reductiesysteem CL is een voorbeeld van een Term
Reductie Systeem (TRS). TRS'en komen al in elementaire wiskunde voor, bij-
voorbeeld

x+0 x
x+ (y+1) -+ (x+y) +1
x. 0 -+ 0
^x. (y+1) -+ x.y+x,

de definitie 1vergelijkingen' voor + en . , vormen een TRS. Gegeven de term

(2+3).(5+7) dan kan deze, op verschillende manieren, m.b.v. de reductie-
regels uitgerekend worden. Ook hier dus de 1Church-Rosser problematiek' en
de vraag of de berekening eindigt. Voor deze TRS zijn die vragen niet zo
moeilijk positief te beantwoorden; de regels vertonen de prettige omstan-
digheid (net als die voor CL boven), dat de variabelen x,y,z aan de linker-
kant van de regels paarsgewijs verschillend zijn (rechts niet). Zulke TRS-en
heten lineair. Een simpel voorbeeld van een niet-lineaire TRS krijgen we door

aan bovenstaande regels de volgende reductie-regel voor de inverse toe te

voegen:
x+(-x) -+ 0.

Het dubbel voorkomen van de x aan de linkerkant is lastig om de volgende

reden. Stel x -»■ x', en beschouw de 'divergente' bereken-stappen

x + (-x) --- ► 0

1
x'+(-x)
322

dan moeten we om een gemeenschappelijk reduct te vinden eerst de verstoring

van de a.h.w. in evenwicht verkerende term x+(-x) compenseren:

x+(-x) 0

x' + (-x) -> x'+(-x') -- ► 0

Het hoofdresultaat van dit proefschrift is nu, dat door die non-lineariteit
van reductie-regels de Church-Rosser eigenschap (CR) beslissend verstoord
wordt, als het reductie-systeem in kwestie tenminste 1sterk genoeg* is. Voor
de eenvoudige niet-lineaire TRS E van boven geldt CR nog wel. Maar als we
een ‘mixture* zouden bekijken van A-calculus plus £ (met termen zoals
Az.((Axy.x+(-y)+z)), dan geldt CR niet langer!
Overigens: het falen van CR impliceert nog niet dat een term dan tot
verschillende uitkomsten gereduceerd kan worden. Inderdaad blijkt in de on-
derzochte systemen dat daar de uniciteit van normaalvormen blijft gelden,
ook al geldt CR niet.
Zulke non-lineaire systemen komen in verschillende gebieden tevoor-
schijn; behalve in *pure* A-calculus en als TRS-en die samenhangen met al-
gebraische structuren (zoals het voorbeeld boven), ook in de Bewijstheorie
en in de Theoretische Informatica, bij een stel regels als:

(if true then x else y) -»• x

(if false then x else y) -»• y
(if z then x else x) -»• x (*)

waar het venijn van de niet-lineariteit in regel (*) zit.

Uit bovenstaande zal het duidelijk zijn dat al deze problemen een
'syntactisch karakter* hebben. Dit proefschrift beperkt zich tot die kant
van de zaak; semantische aspecten (*wat betekent een A-term? Is er een model
voor de A-calculus?') komen hier niet aan bod.
 323

Curriculum vitae

Op 19 december 1945 ben ik in Gorinchem geboren. Van 1957 tot 1963 be-
zocht ik het Stedelijk Gymnasium te 1s-Hertogenboschf waarna ik begon met
de Wis- en Natuurkundestudie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Na een
studie-onderbreking, o.a. voor een part-time leraarschap aan een MAVO-school
gedurende twee jaar en het vervullen van de militaire dienstplicht (van
januari 1970 tot juli 1971; het kandidaatsexamen Wis- en ,Natuurkunde met
bijvak Sterrekunde behaalde ik in juli 1970), heb ik de Wiskundestudie in
1972 hervat.
In mijn afstudeerjaar (1974-1975) was ik assistent bij Van Dalen en
Barendregt. Onder leiding van laatstgenoemde bestudeerde ik de A-calculus
(ook wel Combinatorische Logica geheten). Dit gebeurde in een seminarium
met als verdere deelnemers Jan Bergstra en Henri Volken; de doelstelling
was niet alleen receptief A-calculus te beoefenen, maar met ons vieren ook
actief onderzoek te doen. Dat heeft geleid tot enkele publicaties, waarop
ik samen met Jan Bergstra na mijn doctoraalexamen (juni 1975) ben doorge-
gaan, toen ik inmiddels een vierjarige promotie-aanstelling gekregen had
(half bij de Subfaculteit Wiskunde en half bij de Centrale Interfaculteit
van de R.U. Utrecht).
Na dit gezamenlijke werk ben ik vanaf 1976 doorgegaan op hetzelfde
onderzoeksgebied: de syntactische kant van A-calculus en Combinatorische
Logica, wat geleid heeft tot het onderhavige proefschrift en een publicatie
in het aanstaande Festschrift voor de nestor van de Combinatorische Logica,
H.B. Curry.
Vanaf augustus 1979 ben ik in tijdelijke betrekking bij de Stichting
Opleiding Leraren te Utrecht.

Jan Willem Klop.