4 views

Uploaded by hesham saraya

- Ingles 2
- vcpaper-forweb-finaldec09
- Uses and Gratification Theory
- Grounding.pdf
- 78.pdf
- Marksheet for Peer Assessment
- science 10 - unit c - develoment of cell theory
- 10.1.1.34
- IMs-Appropriation Research Paper
- Rethinking English "Prepositions of Movement".. The Case of To and Through
- molrik reflect 1a
- CORC08101
- viii-mat.pdf
- Theory is Impractical Thus No Good
- The Power of Conversations at Work
- Aicle-my Best Friends
- Annual Report
- Tup
- English Scheme of Work Form 4 2013 New Version 44 Weeks
- Hobsbawm

You are on page 1of 4

Lorenzo Alvisi, Scribe

We will end our discussion of the Scott model by proving the following

Theorem 1 S [ ] ; the Scott model, is a model for PCF.

We have started last time to develop a proof by induction on the terms by looking at some of the constant

terms: we were up to examining Y and we were trying to show that S [ Y ] is continuous. This will turn out

to be the most delicate part of the proof, since the compound terms for abstraction and application, that

cause the real work in most inductive arguments, are easy to handle in the case. On the other hand, the

Y combinator requiring special attention comes as no surprise, since it caused us so much trouble when we

were trying to build the model, and we couldn't nd a classical function space that modeled it.

Then the lemma we have to prove is:

C

Lemma 1 S [ Y ] , the semantic meaning of the Y operator, is continuou s. i.e. S [ Y ] 2 (S [ A] !

C

S [ A] ) ! S [ A]

In order to prove this lemma, let's rst remind that

S [ Y ] (F ) = lim

i

F i (?)

by denition. We have continuity, if we can show that

S [ Y ] (lim F ) = lim

j j j

S [ Y ] !] (Fj )

If we just replace the denitions on both sides, the equation comes out looking like this:

lim(lim F )i (?) = lim

i j j

(lim F )i (?)

j i j

The whole proof is just showing that we can switch the order of the limits in i and j. We can do that

by looking at both the directions of this equality: since it is a rather tedious proof, we will just sketch its

structure by looking at one of the directions. We have to show then that

lim(lim F )i (?) v lim

i j j

(lim F )i (?)

j i j

.

We will proceed by induction on i. Let us notice rst of all that we know we have monotonicity both on

i and j, that is:

Fji(?) v Fji+1(?)

Fji(?) v Fji+1(?)

1

Now we can consider the base case,

lim F 0(?) v lim

j j

(lim F )i (?)

j i j

If i is zero in the right-hand side, the v relation certainly holds by equality, and since the chain 'goes up'

when we increase i, the base case is in general true because of monotonicity. Now, for the induction step,

assume

lim F i(?) v lim

j j

(lim F )i (?)

j i j

then, again because of monotonicity, it follows that

lim

j j

F i+1(?) v lim (lim F )i+1 (?)

j i+1 j

For compound terms we have to show that the meaning of S [ x:b] is continuous. This follows directly

from an induction step, since we know that the body is continuous with respect to the environment. An

analogous argument can be used in the case of applications, where

S [ ap(f ; a)]] = S [ f ] (S [ a] )

Here, f is a continuous function that maps Scott models to Scott models, and then continuity for applications

follows by the induction hypothesis on S [ f ] . 2

The continuous function model is applicable not only to Scott model for PCF but to a wide range of semantic

situations. We can, for instance, apply it back to the theory of Herbrandt-Godel equations and indeed, as

people get comfortable with the theory, it turns out to be useful in a variety of non standard applications.

As an example, Gunther and Scott discuss its application to the theory of context free grammars and to

cardinality. (A complete account of this discussion can be found in the hand-out distributed in class).

Consider the grammar G = (E; fa; bg; P; E), where E consists of

E := ajbEb

Let L(G) be the language generated by G, where L(G) 63 = fa; bg3. In classical textbooks like Hopcroft

and Ullman the denition of this grammar and of its language is given inductively. Gunther and Scott point

out that we can also think of G as providing us with a function G : P (63 ) ! P (63). The way in which it

operates is to accept as input a set corresponding to the non-terminal E, and then use the right-hand side of

the production to obtain a new set for E: every application of G adds something to the set that is submitted

in input.

Example 1 Let E be initially equal to the empty set. Then

'0 = ; '1 = G('0) = fag '2 = G('1 ) = fa; babg '3 = G('2 ) = : : :

and so G is monotone in the inclusion ordering of sets (i.e. ).

2

Since G is a monotone map, we can now apply the theory to obtain the least xed point and say that

L(G) = `Y (G)'

Notice that there might be other xed points, that could be obtained, for instance, by fedding in initially a

string that is not in the language: the only one we care about in language theory, though, is the least xed

point, and this will be the language L(G).

3 Discussion of Models

We have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Scott model for PCF. It is quite natural then

to raise the question: how good is the Scott model for PCF? Are there any other good models? And what

it means, for a model, to be `good'? The Scott model has certainly some advantages: it has an elegant

mathematical content and abstracts from many grubby details, like stacks, pointers and activation records

in its account for recursion. Let us introduce some denitions that will help our discussion.

Soundness Consider two terms, M and N, equal under the relation R generated by all the reductions in

the language (i.e. M =R N ) This synctatic notion of equality is, with respect to reductions, the symbolic

computational equality in the system: you cannot tell terms apart if they are equal this way We say that a

model M is sound if it captures this notion of basic computational equality: in other words, M is sound if

M =R N =) M[ M ] = M[ N ]

Soundness is the most basic property that we wold like to know about a model. It is infact so basic, that

we can have sound models that are, under many respect, not satisfactory. As an example, consider a model

T such that, for any term t,

T [ t] = t

These models are called term models and even if they don't enjoy a good reputation among semanticists,

that don't consider them `real Semantics', they contain a notion of computation, that can be made slighter

more respectable by having each term mapped not exactly to itself, but to the set of all terms in the language

modulo some equivalence relation (say, -equality). Despite of their limits, term models are sound: infact,

the relation =R is coarser than any equivalence relation that groups together terms in these models, and

then the requirement for soundness is satised.

Observational equality We can enrich our set of tools for judging the goodness of a model if we abstract

from the symbolic computational equality =R and introduce the notion of observational equality We write

M N (LR ; O)

and we read \M is equal to N with respect to a language L with the relation R dened as in the previous

paragraph, and to a set of observables O" if there is no context in which M and N can be distinguished

with respect to observations regarding elements of O. Then, for example, in the case of PCF we can

consider observing numerals, or natural number output, and say that two program segments are equal if

their behaviour over the natural numbers is the same. It is very easy to see that, with respect to PCF

3

anyway, this notion of observational equality is much more abstract and identies many more term than

=R . Our old idea of equality was able to account for terms that had the same binding structure, with the

notion of -equality, or that could be, in general symbolically R-reduced to be the same. The new notion

we have introduced, on the other hand, groups terms as equal if we can not tell them apart by looking at

the numbers they produce: it is an equality under true computational terms.

Example 2 Consider the terms

x:x + 2 and y:y + 1 + 1

Our symbolic notion of equality recognizes these terms as equal, since

y:y + 1 + 1 = x:x + 1 + 1 =R x:x + 2

but will not consider equal the terms x:b1 and y:b2 if b1 6=R b2

Observational equality, on the other hand, will recognize them as equal as long as

x:b1(n) = y:b2 (n) 8n 2 N 2

Observational equality, sometimes called extensional equality, is then more inclusive than syntactic equal-

ity: infact, as we have seen, two functions now are equal as long as they compute the same value. (Notice

that this notion is undecidable, since it is equivalent to asking if two Turing machines recognize the same

language)

Abstractness We can nally use the notion of observational equality to introduce a concept that we will

discuss more deeply in the next lecture: abstractness. We will say that a model is abstract if observational

equality implies semantic equality, i.e.

M N (LR; O) =) M[ M ] = M[ N ]

Note that term models are not abstract and that this is actually a way of distinguishing between syntactic

models and mathematical models: the mathematical ones are abstract. As a matter of fact there is a very

trivial abstract model, the one that maps everything to the same object. Abstraction consists of throwing

away details: in this case we throw away so many details that there is nothing left! We will see in the next

lecture how to avoid excesses by introducing the concept of adequately abstract (fully abstract).

- Ingles 2Uploaded byvaleria
- vcpaper-forweb-finaldec09Uploaded bymumsthewordfa
- Uses and Gratification TheoryUploaded byElise Thompson
- Grounding.pdfUploaded byfnusrat.du
- 78.pdfUploaded byfreixomil
- Marksheet for Peer AssessmentUploaded byjanelle ramdahin
- science 10 - unit c - develoment of cell theoryUploaded byapi-284616129
- 10.1.1.34Uploaded byfsakr2008
- IMs-Appropriation Research PaperUploaded byLORENZ JAY MANATAD
- Rethinking English "Prepositions of Movement".. The Case of To and ThroughUploaded bytulakalbeyo
- molrik reflect 1aUploaded byapi-302570837
- CORC08101Uploaded byMaagathalephoto
- viii-mat.pdfUploaded byNirmala Saini
- Theory is Impractical Thus No GoodUploaded byOlubukola Akintunde
- The Power of Conversations at WorkUploaded byjamie showkeir
- Aicle-my Best FriendsUploaded byLau ra
- Annual ReportUploaded byNaushaad Kabir
- TupUploaded bySarah Jarnagin
- English Scheme of Work Form 4 2013 New Version 44 WeeksUploaded byToni Kim
- HobsbawmUploaded byIrina Onofrei
- Adams, HesteAdams, Hester, Bradley, Meyers & Keating (2014)r, Bradley, Meyers & Keating (2014)Uploaded byYetifshum
- Tugas Nando Igmansyah.docxUploaded byayeshariandra
- introduction to latent thingsUploaded byEmmanuel Mecanosaurio
- Analysis of Algorithms IUploaded byErika Carrasco
- LSE Abstract MathematicsUploaded bygattling
- Module 1 Unit 1Uploaded byAvanelle Joseph-Edwards
- A Philosophicall Essay for the Reunion of the LanguagesUploaded byJ Christian Odehnal
- Just Vocabulary All Words of the PodcastUploaded byJust Vocabulary
- Abstract Mathematics Mt2116 Ch1-3Uploaded bydiamond3187
- literacy unit persuasive texts real estatetheme parkUploaded byapi-243600639

- Adjective Phrases - Gramática Inglés en _English Grammar Today Cambridge University PressUploaded byNyah Deveraux
- Phenomenal Access ConsciousnessUploaded byKaritaAzevedo
- bukuUploaded byazizah_pertiwi
- French Tout vs TousUploaded byglen4u
- VII_QuestionsUPDATEDUploaded byMinh Hue
- GROHMANN_Prolific-PeripheriesUploaded byKleanthes Grohmann
- Aptis AnswersUploaded bypamieyana
- Vocab UlaUploaded byElyoth Kitsumi Uchija
- German “Particles” and How to Use Them.pdfUploaded byTralalalala11
- Assignment on MorphologyUploaded bySahel Md Delabul Hossain
- Semiotics of ontological quantaUploaded byVasil Penchev
- Relevance Theory and TranslationUploaded byBechir Saoudi
- PronounsUploaded byThinagaran Gunasegaran
- Relevant_LogicUploaded byyoshis85
- pangalanUploaded byAmado Aguilar Caragay II
- Rpt English Year 3 2018Uploaded byNurul Fatihah
- Semantic Annotation of Narrative Media ObjectsUploaded byAzana Aldana
- Rules of Grammar NarrationUploaded byapi-3731257
- ParticipantsUploaded byAlex Leonte
- Dr. Roy's Everything Grammar Part I AnswersUploaded byDr. Paul Friesen
- PhrasebookUploaded byannapetrova
- Japanese LanguageUploaded byKiran
- An Introduction to Ling. 1st LectureUploaded byMohamed Moatez
- English Scheme of Work for Year 5Uploaded byTai ChoonLee
- (Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers 3) Jaakko Hintikka (Auth.)-Language, Truth and Logic in Mathematics-Springer Netherlands (1998)Uploaded byE. Goldstajn
- Auxiliary & Modal VerbUploaded bySitifatimah92
- Translation TechniquesUploaded bymaoter
- MORFOLOGIJA.docUploaded byEma Vučetić Savatić
- Cartwright PropositionsUploaded byTrad Anon
- English moduleUploaded byJosenia Constantino