Proof-nets
From LLWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Lionel Vaux (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "The aim of this page is to provide a common framework for describing linear logic proof nets, interaction nets, multiport interaction nets, and the likes, while factoring out mos…") |
Lionel Vaux (Talk | contribs) (Blanked the page) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | The aim of this page is to provide a common framework for describing linear |
||
− | logic proof nets, interaction nets, multiport interaction nets, and the likes, |
||
− | while factoring out most of the tedious, uninteresting details (clearly not the |
||
− | fanciest page of LLWiki). |
||
− | |||
− | == Preliminaries == |
||
− | |||
− | === The short story === |
||
− | |||
− | * the general flavor is that of multiport interaction nets; |
||
− | * the top/down or passive/active orientation of cells is related with the distinction between premisses and conclusions of rules, (and in that sense, a cut is not a logical rule, but the focus of interaction between two rules); |
||
− | * cuts are thus wires rather than cells/links: this fits with the intuition of GoI, but not with the most common presentations of proof nets; |
||
− | * when representing proof nets, we introduce axioms explicitly as cells, so that axiom-cuts do not vanish. |
||
− | === Conventions === |
||
− | |||
− | If <math>A</math> and <math>B</math> are sets, we write <math>A+B</math> for |
||
− | <math>\{0\}\times A \cup \{1\}\times B</math>. |
||
− | More generally, |
||
− | <math>A_0+\cdots+A_n=\{0\}\times A \cup {\cdots} \cup \{n\}\times A_n</math>. |
||
− | There are natural bijections <math>A+(B+C)\cong A+B+C \cong (A+B)+C</math>. |
||
− | |||
− | == Nets == |
||
− | |||
− | === Wires === |
||
− | |||
− | A ''wiring'' is the data of a finite set <math>P</math> of ports |
||
− | and of a partition <math>{W}</math> of <math>P</math> by pairs (the ''wires''): |
||
− | if <math>\{p,q\}\in{W}</math>, we write <math>{W}(p)=q</math> and <math>{W}(q)=p</math>. |
||
− | Hence a wiring is equivalently given by |
||
− | an involutive permutation <math>{W}</math> of finite domain <math>P</math>, |
||
− | without fixpoints (forall <math>p</math>, <math>{W}(p)\not=p</math>): the wires are then |
||
− | the orbits. |
||
− | Another equivalent presentation is to consider <math>{W}</math> as |
||
− | a (simple, loopless, undirected) graph, with vertices in P, |
||
− | all of degree 1. |
||
− | |||
− | We say two wirings are disjoint when their sets of ports are. |
||
− | A ''connection'' between two disjoint wirings <math>W</math> and <math>W'</math> is |
||
− | a partial injection <math>(I,I',f):P\pinj P'</math>: <math>I\subseteq P</math>, |
||
− | <math>I'\subseteq P'</math> and <math>f</math> is a bijection <math>I\leftrightarrow I'</math>. |
||
− | We then write <math>W\bowtie_f{{W}'}</math> for the wiring obtained |
||
− | by identifying the ports pairwise mapped by <math>f</math>, and then |
||
− | ``straightening`` the paths thus obtained to recover wires: |
||
− | notice this might also introduce loops and we write <math>\Inner{W}{W'}_f</math> |
||
− | for the number of loops thus appeared. |
||
− | |||
− | We describe these operations a bit more formally. |
||
− | Write <math>P = P_0\uplus I</math> and <math>P' = P_0'\uplus I'</math>. |
||
− | Then consider the graph <math>W\dblcolon_f{{W}'}</math> with vertices in |
||
− | <math>P\cup P'</math>, and such that |
||
− | there is an edge between <math>p</math> and <math>q</math> iff |
||
− | <math>q={W}(p)</math>, |
||
− | <math>q={W'}(p)</math>, |
||
− | <math>q=f(p)</math>, |
||
− | <math>p=f(q)</math>: |
||
− | in other words, <math>W\dblcolon_f{{W}'}=W\cup W'\cup f\cup f^{-1}</math>. |
||
− | Vertices in <math>P_0\cup P'_0</math> |
||
− | are of degree 1, and the others are of degree 2. |
||
− | Hence maximal paths in <math>W\dblcolon_f{{W}'}</math> are of two kinds: |
||
− | |||
− | * straight paths, with both ends in <math>P_0\cup P_0'</math>; |
||
− | * cycles, with vertices all in <math>I\cup I'</math>. |
||
− | Then the wires in <math>W\bowtie_f{{W}'}</math> are the pairs <math>\{p,p'\}</math> such that |
||
− | <math>p</math> and <math>p'</math> are the ends of a path in <math>W\dblcolon_f{{W}'}</math>. |
||
− | And <math>\Inner{W}{W'}_{f}</math> is the number of |
||
− | cycles in <math>W\dblcolon_f{{W}'}</math>, or more precisely |
||
− | the number of support sets of cycles (i.e. we forget about the starting |
||
− | vertice of cycles). |
||
− | |||
− | {{Lemma| |
||
− | Consider three wirings <math>(P,W)</math>, <math>(P',W')</math> and <math>(P'',W'')</math>, |
||
− | and two connections <math>(I,I',f):P\pinj P'</math> and |
||
− | <math>(J',J'',g):P'\pinj P''</math> such that <math>I'\cap J'=\emptyset</math>. |
||
− | Then |
||
− | |||
− | <math> (W\bowtie_f W')\bowtie_g W''= |
||
− | W\bowtie_f(W'\bowtie_g W'')</math> |
||
− | |||
− | and |
||
− | |||
− | <math> \Inner{W}{W'}_{f}+\Inner{(W\bowtie_f{{W}'})}{{W}''}_g= |
||
− | \Inner{W}{(W'\bowtie_g W'')}_f+\Inner{{W}'}{{W}''}_g.</math> |
||
− | }} |
||
− | |||
− | {{Proof| |
||
− | The first equation holds because open maximal paths in |
||
− | <math>W\dblcolon_f{W\bowtie_g'}{{W}''}</math> correspond with those in |
||
− | <math>W\dblcolon_f{(W'\dblcolon_g{{W}''})}</math>, hence in |
||
− | <math>(W\dblcolon_f W')\dblcolon_g W''</math>, hence in |
||
− | <math>{W\bowtie_f{{W}'}}\dblcolon_g{{W}''}</math>. |
||
− | The second equation holds because both sides are two possible writings for |
||
− | the number of loops in <math>{(W\dblcolon_f{{W}'})}\dblcolon_g{{W}''}</math> |
||
− | }} |
||
− | |||
− | === Nets === |
||
− | |||
− | A ''signature'' is the data of a set |
||
− | <math>\Sigma</math> of symbols, together with arity functions |
||
− | <math>\alpha:\Sigma\to\mathbf{N}\setminus\{0\}</math> (number of |
||
− | ''active'' ports, or conclusions) |
||
− | and <math>\pi:\Sigma\to\mathbf N</math> (number of |
||
− | ''passive'' ports, or hypotheses). |
||
− | In the remaining, we assume |
||
− | such a signature is given. |
||
− | |||
− | A ''cell'' <math>c</math> with ports in <math>P</math> is the data of |
||
− | a symbol <math>\sigma\in\Sigma</math> and of two disjoint lists |
||
− | of pairwise distinct ports: |
||
− | <math>\alpha(c)\in P^{\alpha(\sigma)}</math> |
||
− | is the list of ''active'' ports |
||
− | and <math>\pi(c)\in P^{\pi(\sigma)}</math> |
||
− | is the list of ''passive'' ports. |
||
− | |||
− | A ''net'' is the data of a wiring <math>(P,W)</math> and of a set <math>C</math> of disjoint cells on |
||
− | <math>P</math>. It follows from the definitions that each port <math>p\in P</math> appears in |
||
− | exactly one wire and in at most one cell: we say <math>p</math> is ''free'' if it is |
||
− | not part of a cell, and <math>p</math> is ''internal'' otherwise. We write <math>\textrm{fp}(R)</math> for |
||
− | the set of free ports of a net <math>R</math>. |
||
− | |||
− | Generally, the “names” of internal ports of a net are not relevant, but free |
||
− | ports matter most often: internal ports are the analogue of bound variables in |
||
− | <math>\lambda</math>-terms. |
||
− | More formally, an ''isomorphism'' from net <math>R</math> to net <math>R'</math> |
||
− | is the data of a bijection of ports <math>\phi:P\leftrightarrow P'</math> and a bijection |
||
− | of cells <math>\psi:C\leftrightarrow C'</math> such that: |
||
− | |||
− | * for all <math>p\in P</math>, <math>W'(\phi(p))=\phi(W(p))</math>; |
||
− | * for all <math>c\in C</math>: |
||
− | Observe that under these conditions <math>\psi</math> is uniquely induced by <math>\phi</math>. |
||
− | We say that the isomorphism <math>\phi</math> is ''nominal'' if moreover <math>p\in\textrm{fp}(R)</math> |
||
− | implies <math>p=\phi(p)</math>. |
||
− | |||
− | === Rewriting === |
||
− | |||
− | We say two nets are disjoint when their sets of ports are. |
||
− | Let <math>R</math> and <math>R'</math> be disjoint nets, and <math>(I,I',f)</math> be a |
||
− | connection between <math>W</math> and <math>W'</math>, such that |
||
− | <math>I\subseteq \textrm{fp}(R)</math> and <math>I'\subseteq \textrm{fp}(R')</math>. |
||
− | We then write <math>R\bowtie_f{R'}</math> for the net |
||
− | with wiring <math>W\bowtie_f{W'}</math> and cells |
||
− | <math>C\cup C'</math>. |
||
− | |||
− | {{Lemma| |
||
− | Let <math>R_0</math>, <math>R_1</math> and <math>R'</math> be nets such that <math>R_0</math> and <math>R_1</math> |
||
− | are disjoint from <math>R</math>, |
||
− | <math>(I,I',f)</math> be a connection <math>\textrm{fp}(R_0)\pinj \textrm{fp}(R')</math> |
||
− | and <math>\phi</math> an isomorphism <math>R_0\cong R_1</math> such that |
||
− | <math>\phi(p)=\phi(p')</math> for all <math>p\in\textrm{fp}(R_0)\setminus I</math>. |
||
− | Then <math>R_0\bowtie_f{R'}</math> is nominally isomorphic to |
||
− | <math>R_1\bowtie_f\circ\phi^{-1}{R'}</math>. |
||
− | }} |
||
− | |||
− | A ''net rewriting rule'' is a pair <math>(r_0,r_1)</math> of nets |
||
− | such that <math>\textrm{fp}(r_0)=\textrm{fp}(r_1)</math>. Then an instance of this rule |
||
− | is a pair <math>(R_0,R_1)</math> such that there exist: |
||
− | |||
− | * a nets <math>R'_0</math> and <math>R'_1</math> isomorphic to <math>r_0</math> and <math>r_1</math> respectively, namely <math>R'_i=\phi_i(r_i)</math>, so that moreover <math>\phi_0(p)=\phi_1(p)</math> for all <math>p\in\textrm{fp}(r_0)</math> (in particular, <math>\textrm{fp}(R'_0)=\textrm{fp}(R'_1)</math>); |
||
− | * a net <math>R''</math>, disjoint from <math>R'_0</math> and <math>R'_1</math>; |
||
− | * a connection <math>(\textrm{fp}(R'_0),J,f):\textrm{fp}(R'_0)\pinj \textrm{fp}(R'')</math>; |
||
− | such that each <math>R_i</math> is nominally isomorphic to |
||
− | <math>R'_i\bowtie_f{R''}</math>. |
||
− | |||
− | === Typing === |
||
− | |||
− | A typing system on signature <math>\Sigma</math> is the data of a |
||
− | set <math>\Theta</math> of types, an involutive negation <math>\cdot\orth:\Theta\to\Theta</math>, |
||
− | together with a typing discipline for each symbol, ''i.e.'' a relation |
||
− | <math>\Theta(\sigma)\subseteq\Theta^{\alpha(\sigma)}\times\Theta^{\pi(\sigma)}</math>. |
||
− | We then write <math>A_1,\cdots,A_{\pi(\sigma)}\vdash_\sigma |
||
− | B_1,\cdots,B_{\alpha(\sigma)}</math> for <math>(\vec A,\vec B)\in\Theta(\sigma)</math>. |
||
− | |||
− | Then a ''typing'' for net <math>R=(P,W,C)</math> is a function <math>\tau:P\to \Theta</math> |
||
− | such that: |
||
− | |||
− | * for all <math>p\in P</math>, <math>\tau(W(p))=\tau(p)\orth</math>; |
||
− | * for all <math>c\in C</math> of symbol <math>\sigma</math>, <math>\tau(\pi(c))\vdash\tau(\alpha(c))\orth</math>; |
||
− | where, in the last formula, we implicitly generalized |
||
− | <math>\tau</math> to lists of ports and <math>\cdot\orth</math> to lists of formulas, |
||
− | in the obvious, componentwise fashion. |
||
− | The ''interface'' of the typed net <math>(R,\tau)</math> is then |
||
− | the restriction of <math>\tau</math> to <math>\textrm{fp}(R)</math>. |
||
− | |||
− | The idea, is that a wire <math>{p,q}</math>, bears the type <math>\tau(q)</math> (resp. <math>\tau(p)</math>) in |
||
− | the direction <math>(p,q)</math> (resp. <math>(q,p)</math>), so that a rule |
||
− | <math>\vec A\vdash_\sigma \vec B</math> reads as an inference from passive inputs (hypotheses) |
||
− | to active outputs (conclusions). |
||
− | |||
− | Observe that if <math>(R,\tau)</math> is a typed net, and |
||
− | <math>\phi:R\leftrightarrow R'</math> is an isomorphism, |
||
− | then <math>R'</math> is typed and its interface is <math>\tau\circ\phi^{-1}</math>: |
||
− | in particular, if <math>\phi</math> is nominal, <math>R'</math> and <math>R</math> have the same interface. |
||
− | |||
− | Now let <math>(R,\tau)</math> and <math>(R',\tau')</math> be typed nets |
||
− | and <math>(I,I',f)</math> a connection so that <math>\tau'\circ f</math> and |
||
− | <math>\tau\orth=\cdot\orth\circ\tau</math> coincide on <math>I</math>. |
||
− | Then this induces a typing of <math>R\bowtie_f{R'}</math> |
||
− | preserving the interface on the remaining free ports. |
||
− | |||
− | === Boxes === |
||
− | |||
− | TODO |