1
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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