4 views

Uploaded by hesham saraya

- Princ. of HT
- WhatIsInAWord - Study in Phonosemantics
- Derivation of Meaning in Proverbs 1 and 2 Misurata Journal
- Grammar and Vocabulary Exercises Student
- ch 17 q new
- The Six Secrets of Change
- [2010] Revisiting Lefebvre final draft
- Arch. Theory R3 Printout
- From Homogenization to Pluralism
- EG2002 - Report Template
- Discovery Essay Question Samples
- Falsafah Ekonomi Islam
- Presentation Skills
- Book 16 Smith Stephen
- Çeviri Kuramı Kavramlar
- Why We Are So Stupid
- Assess Criteria 18
- TR_2007_1
- lesson plan ph tests revised
- Form

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).

- Princ. of HTUploaded byJenny Kuriakose
- WhatIsInAWord - Study in PhonosemanticsUploaded byzhivanzhelimir
- Derivation of Meaning in Proverbs 1 and 2 Misurata JournalUploaded bybhuvaneswar Chilukuri
- Grammar and Vocabulary Exercises StudentUploaded byShiv Songara
- ch 17 q newUploaded byhesham hassan
- The Six Secrets of ChangeUploaded bysheriff0
- [2010] Revisiting Lefebvre final draftUploaded byStephen Read
- Arch. Theory R3 PrintoutUploaded byniven anggot
- From Homogenization to PluralismUploaded byCédrick Cunha
- EG2002 - Report TemplateUploaded bywhadddup
- Discovery Essay Question SamplesUploaded bypiethepker
- Falsafah Ekonomi IslamUploaded byCendekia Pandir
- Presentation SkillsUploaded byprawkr
- Book 16 Smith StephenUploaded byमान तुम्सा
- Çeviri Kuramı KavramlarUploaded byanyavuz
- Why We Are So StupidUploaded bydcylee
- Assess Criteria 18Uploaded byA Fry
- TR_2007_1Uploaded bySubhajit Chakraborty
- lesson plan ph tests revisedUploaded byapi-242708185
- FormUploaded byBilly Jazli
- blank objectives onlyUploaded byapi-294622267
- Handbook PaperUploaded byresfreak
- 7023 Tugasan 2Uploaded byBeat Emilia
- Chapter 7 An analysis of agents.docxUploaded byFerdiansyah Maydelta
- the second language learning with the native languageUploaded byapi-331228407
- hd 450 fa15Uploaded byapi-282907054
- IntroductionUploaded byJaasiel Garcia
- THE INSTITUTE OF ROTATION IN THE SYSTEM OF STATE GOVERNMENT: CONCEPT AND ESSENCE.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- syllabusspanishll-latestdraft2014-07-30 2Uploaded byapi-259470476
- Lesson PlanUploaded byHenry Buemio

- Teacher Evaluation Questions for Students 160308Uploaded byapi-27223531
- Rosicrucian Digest, April 1955Uploaded bysauron385
- ch7Uploaded byOscar Li
- BUMGT6927 Course Description Partners Sem 2 2012 AHUploaded byarsriram
- 2. Yogi-Kishore (1)Uploaded byAnonymous CwJeBCAXp
- (Clifford, Alan Hooker) Reason, Regulation and Realism.pdfUploaded bychrz90
- Estee LauderUploaded byHiếu Trọng Đỗ
- Decision Support Systems_A Summary, Problems, And Future TrendsUploaded byRadhianisa Igatama
- obed enUploaded byapi-247832690
- MidtermUploaded bybryanfruto
- The Constructivist Approach to Mathematics Teaching and the ActivUploaded byPwint
- A Cognitive Semiotic Approach to Sound SymbolismUploaded byJacek Tlaga
- Executive Coaching on Kpku-For BulicUploaded by670620
- Attitudes of CMU Humanities English Major StudentsUploaded byapi-3807032
- assignment 1Uploaded byapi-254146673
- Eng7Uploaded byReiner Gatdula
- The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat NotesUploaded bymrquockie
- Meaning as a SignUploaded byAngie Nam Nam
- 41.1.wongUploaded bymikadika
- Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward 9.pdfUploaded bymanahil021
- tb letter of recommendation michele zmichUploaded byapi-283749805
- Kolb Learning Styles (1)Uploaded bysaumya shrivastav
- PG Diploma in Procurement & Contracts Management BrochureUploaded byTariq Akhtar
- 10_fictionindesignresearch_evertypmaUploaded byeypma
- Personal Identity (Reagen)Uploaded byFilip Tripp
- holcomb chapter 3Uploaded byapi-244761274
- Resume of Sean McConnellUploaded bySean McConnell
- eng year 05 judging standards assessment pointers web versionUploaded byapi-277778788
- sabutanUploaded byIcas Phils
- Yuki, Maddux, Masuda- Culture and Recognizing EmotionsUploaded byDamir Đirlić