MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We are looking for a proof or counter-examples to the following

Hypothesis. In interaction calculus $\langle \varnothing\ |\ \Gamma(M, x) \cup \Gamma(N, x)\rangle \downarrow \langle \varnothing\ |\ x_1 = x_1, \dots, x_n = x_n \rangle$, where the $\Gamma$ mapping is defined in a compact encoding for $\lambda$-terms, $M, N \in \Lambda_0$ are combinators, and $n \geq 1$, if and only if $\lambda K\beta\eta \vdash M = N$.

In the case if the hypothesis holds true, we have an effective model for the $\lambda K\beta\eta$ equational theory.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

One counterexample for the forward implication ($\not\Rightarrow$) is $M \equiv \lambda x.x\ I\ I$ and $M \equiv \lambda x.x\ I\ F$. Indeed,

$$ \langle \varnothing\ |\ \Gamma(M, x) \cup \Gamma(N, x)\rangle \rightarrow^* \langle \varnothing\ |\ x = x\rangle, $$

but $M$ and $N$ are different $\beta\eta$-normal forms.

Another counterexample ($\not\Leftarrow$) is an equation $M \equiv I = K\ I\ \Omega \equiv N$ which is valid in $\lambda K\beta\eta$. Indeed, $$ \langle \varnothing\ |\ \Gamma(M, x) \cup \Gamma(N, x)\rangle \rightarrow^* \langle \varnothing\ |\ x = x, \Gamma(\Omega, \epsilon) \rangle, $$ while the subnet $\langle \varnothing\ |\ \Gamma(\Omega, \epsilon)\rangle$ does not have a normal form.

On the other hand, the hypothesis might still be provable for $\lambda I\beta\eta$-calculus.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.