Type-alpha DPLs

This paper introduces Denotational Proof Languages (DPLs). DPLs are languages for presenting, discovering, and checking formal proofs. In particular, in this paper we discus type-alpha DPLs---a simple class of DPLs for which termination is guaranteed and proof checking can be performed in time linear in the size of the proof. Type-alpha DPLs allow for lucid proof presentation and for efficient proof checking, but not for proof search. Type-omega DPLs allow for search as well as simple presentation and checking, but termination is no longer guaranteed and proof checking may diverge. We do not study type-omega DPLs here. We start by listing some common characteristics of DPLs. We then illustrate with a particularly simple example: a toy type-alpha DPL called PAR, for deducing parities. We present the abstract syntax of PAR, followed by two different kinds of formal semantics: evaluation and denotational. We then relate the two semantics and show how proof checking becomes tantamount to evaluation. We proceed to develop the proof theory of PAR, formulating and studying certain key notions such as observational equivalence that pervade all DPLs. We then present NDL, a type-alpha DPL for classical zero-order natural deduction. Our presentation of NDL mirrors that of PAR, showing how every basic concept that was introduced in PAR resurfaces in NDL. We present sample proofs of several well-known tautologies of propositional logic that demonstrate our thesis that DPL proofs are readable, writable, and concise. Next we contrast DPLs to typed logics based on the Curry-Howard isomorphism, and discuss the distinction between pure and augmented DPLs. Finally we consider the issue of implementing DPLs, presenting an implementation of PAR in SML and one in Athena, and end with some concluding remarks.

Type-omega DPLs

Type-omega DPLs (Denotational Proof Languages) are languages for proof presentation and search that offer strong soundness guarantees. LCF-type systems such as HOL offer similar guarantees, but their soundness relies heavily on static type systems. By contrast, DPLs ensure soundness dynamically, through their evaluation semantics; no type system is necessary. This is possible owing to a novel two-tier syntax that separates deductions from computations, and to the abstraction of assumption bases, which is factored into the semantics of the language and allows for sound evaluation. Every type-omega DPL properly contains a type-alpha DPL, which can be used to present proofs in a lucid and detailed form, exclusively in terms of primitive inference rules. Derived inference rules are expressed as user-defined methods, which are "proof recipes" that take arguments and dynamically perform appropriate deductions. Methods arise naturally via parametric abstraction over type-alpha proofs. In that light, the evaluation of a method call can be viewed as a computation that carries out a type-alpha deduction. The type-alpha proof "unwound" by such a method call is called the "certificate" of the call. Certificates can be checked by exceptionally simple type-alpha interpreters, and thus they are useful whenever we wish to minimize our trusted base. Methods are statically closed over lexical environments, but dynamically scoped over assumption bases. They can take other methods as arguments, they can iterate, and they can branch conditionally. These capabilities, in tandem with the bifurcated syntax of type-omega DPLs and their dynamic assumption-base semantics, allow the user to define methods in a style that is disciplined enough to ensure soundness yet fluid enough to permit succinct and perspicuous expression of arbitrarily sophisticated derived inference rules. We demonstrate every major feature of type-omega DPLs by defining and studying NDL-omega, a higher-order, lexically scoped, call-by-value type-omega DPL for classical zero-order natural deduction---a simple choice that allows us to focus on type-omega syntax and semantics rather than on the subtleties of the underlying logic. We start by illustrating how type-alpha DPLs naturally lead to type-omega DPLs by way of abstraction; present the formal syntax and semantics of NDL-omega; prove several results about it, including soundness; give numerous examples of methods; point out connections to the lambda-phi calculus, a very general framework for type-omega DPLs; introduce a notion of computational and deductive cost; define several instrumented interpreters for computing such costs and for generating certificates; explore the use of type-omega DPLs as general programming languages; show that DPLs do not have to be type-less by formulating a static Hindley-Milner polymorphic type system for NDL-omega; discuss some idiosyncrasies of type-omega DPLs such as the potential divergence of proof checking; and compare type-omega DPLs to other approaches to proof presentation and discovery. Finally, a complete implementation of NDL-omega in SML-NJ is given for users who want to run the examples and experiment with the language.

Simplifying transformations for type-alpha certificates

This paper presents an algorithm for simplifying NDL deductions. An array of simplifying transformations are rigorously defined. They are shown to be terminating, and to respect the formal semantis of the language. We also show that the transformations never increase the size or complexity of a deduction---in the worst case, they produce deductions of the same size and complexity as the original. We present several examples of proofs containing various types of "detours", and explain how our procedure eliminates them, resulting in smaller and cleaner deductions. All of the given transformations are fully implemented in SML-NJ. The complete code listing is presented, along with explanatory comments. Finally, although the transformations given here are defined for NDL, we point out that they can be applied to any type-alpha DPL that satisfies a few simple conditions.

Computational Structure of Human Language

The central thesis of this report is that human language is NP-complete. That is, the process of comprehending and producing utterances is bounded above by the class NP, and below by NP-hardness. This constructive complexity thesis has two empirical consequences. The first is to predict that a linguistic theory outside NP is unnaturally powerful. The second is to predict that a linguistic theory easier than NP-hard is descriptively inadequate. To prove the lower bound, I show that the following three subproblems of language comprehension are all NP-hard: decide whether a given sound is possible sound of a given language; disambiguate a sequence of words; and compute the antecedents of pronouns. The proofs are based directly on the empirical facts of the language user's knowledge, under an appropriate idealization. Therefore, they are invariant across linguistic theories. (For this reason, no knowledge of linguistic theory is needed to understand the proofs, only knowledge of English.) To illustrate the usefulness of the upper bound, I show that two widely-accepted analyses of the language user's knowledge (of syntactic ellipsis and phonological dependencies) lead to complexity outside of NP (PSPACE-hard and Undecidable, respectively). Next, guided by the complexity proofs, I construct alternate linguisitic analyses that are strictly superior on descriptive grounds, as well as being less complex computationally (in NP). The report also presents a new framework for linguistic theorizing, that resolves important puzzles in generative linguistics, and guides the mathematical investigation of human language.