patternMinor
Higher order rewriting theory and critical pairs with the beta rule
Viewed 0 times
ordercriticaltheruletheorywithbetahigherrewritingand
Problem
In a higher-order pattern rewrite system, one specifies rewrites on beta
normal forms of terms. Is it possible to have a rewrite like:
$\gamma := \lambda x . F(m) \to F(\lambda x . m)$
for some function symbol $F$ and $m$ in $\beta$-normal form? If so, then there is a "critical pair" between $\gamma$ and $\beta$
$F(m) [t/x] \leftarrow (\lambda x . F(m)) t \rightarrow (F(\lambda x .m )) t $
On the other hand, is there any reason to require $\gamma$ go the other direction?:
$F(\lambda x . m) \to \lambda x . F(m)$
This would avoid critical pairs with $\beta$, but may in practice be less natural.
If the former is possible, can one still conclude confluence if all critical pairs are development closed?
normal forms of terms. Is it possible to have a rewrite like:
$\gamma := \lambda x . F(m) \to F(\lambda x . m)$
for some function symbol $F$ and $m$ in $\beta$-normal form? If so, then there is a "critical pair" between $\gamma$ and $\beta$
$F(m) [t/x] \leftarrow (\lambda x . F(m)) t \rightarrow (F(\lambda x .m )) t $
On the other hand, is there any reason to require $\gamma$ go the other direction?:
$F(\lambda x . m) \to \lambda x . F(m)$
This would avoid critical pairs with $\beta$, but may in practice be less natural.
If the former is possible, can one still conclude confluence if all critical pairs are development closed?
Solution
The theory of higher-order critical pairs can indeed handle this example, as outlined in the following article:
Higher-Order Rewrite Systems and their Confluence, Richard Mayr & Tobias Nipkow
There are several different notions of higher-order rewrite systems, and several of them are able to handle your example, including those of the paper.
The critical pair lemma is still true: if every critical pair is development closed, and the system is terminating, then one can conclude that it is confluent. The second condition is necessary though, in particular, $\beta$-reduction on untyped terms can muck things up.
This means that completion is still a meaningful operation in this setting.
At any rate, your second rule seems a bit more natural in a termination context, where $F$ is "pushed towards the leaves", but obviously it depends on the meaning of the symbol.
Higher-Order Rewrite Systems and their Confluence, Richard Mayr & Tobias Nipkow
There are several different notions of higher-order rewrite systems, and several of them are able to handle your example, including those of the paper.
The critical pair lemma is still true: if every critical pair is development closed, and the system is terminating, then one can conclude that it is confluent. The second condition is necessary though, in particular, $\beta$-reduction on untyped terms can muck things up.
This means that completion is still a meaningful operation in this setting.
At any rate, your second rule seems a bit more natural in a termination context, where $F$ is "pushed towards the leaves", but obviously it depends on the meaning of the symbol.
Context
StackExchange Computer Science Q#82118, answer score: 3
Revisions (0)
No revisions yet.