### Refine

#### Document Type

- Working Paper (6)
- Conference Proceeding (1)

#### Keywords

- Kontextuelle Gleichheit (2)
- Lambda-Kalkül (2)
- contextual equivalence (2)
- lambda calculus (2)
- letrec (2)
- semantics (2)
- Formale Semantik (1)
- Formale Semantik (1)
- Nichtdeterminismus (1)
- bisimulation (1)

- Counterexamples to simulation in non-deterministic call-by-need lambda-calculi with letrec (2009)
- This note shows that in non-deterministic extended lambda calculi with letrec, the tool of applicative (bi)simulation is in general not usable for contextual equivalence, by giving a counterexample adapted from data flow analysis. It also shown that there is a flaw in a lemma and a theorem concerning finite simulation in a conference paper by the first two authors.

- Simulation in the call-by-need lambda-calculus with letrec (2010)
- This paper shows the equivalence of applicative similarity and contextual approximation, and hence also of bisimilarity and contextual equivalence, in the deterministic call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec. Bisimilarity simplifies equivalence proofs in the calculus and opens a way for more convenient correctness proofs for program transformations. Although this property may be a natural one to expect, to the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first one providing a proof. The proof technique is to transfer the contextual approximation into Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus by a fully abstract and surjective translation. This also shows that the natural embedding of Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus into the call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec is an isomorphism between the respective term-models.We show that the equivalence property proven in this paper transfers to a call-by-need letrec calculus developed by Ariola and Felleisen.

- Simulation in the call-by-need lambda-calculus with letrec (2010)
- This paper shows the equivalence of applicative similarity and contextual approximation, and hence also of bisimilarity and contextual equivalence, in the deterministic call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec. Bisimilarity simplifies equivalence proofs in the calculus and opens a way for more convenient correctness proofs for program transformations. Although this property may be a natural one to expect, to the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first one providing a proof. The proof technique is to transfer the contextual approximation into Abramsky’s lazy lambda calculus by a fully abstract and surjective translation. This also shows that the natural embedding of Abramsky’s lazy lambda calculus into the call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec is an isomorphism between the respective term-models. We show that the equivalence property proven in this paper transfers to a call-by-need letrec calculus developed by Ariola and Felleisen. 1998 ACM Subject Classification: F.4.2, F.3.2, F.3.3, F.4.1. Key words and phrases: semantics, contextual equivalence, bisimulation, lambda calculus, call-by-need, letrec.

- Simulation in the call-by-need lambda-calculus with letrec, case, constructors, and seq (2012)
- This paper shows equivalence of applicative similarity and contextual approximation, and hence also of bisimilarity and contextual equivalence, in LR, the deterministic call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec extended by data constructors, case-expressions and Haskell's seqoperator. LR models an untyped version of the core language of Haskell. Bisimilarity simplifies equivalence proofs in the calculus and opens a way for more convenient correctness proofs for program transformations. The proof is by a fully abstract and surjective transfer of the contextual approximation into a call-by-name calculus, which is an extension of Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus. In the latter calculus equivalence of similarity and contextual approximation can be shown by Howe's method. Using an equivalent but inductive definition of behavioral preorder we then transfer similarity back to the calculus LR. The translation from the call-by-need letrec calculus into the extended call-by-name lambda calculus is the composition of two translations. The first translation replaces the call-by-need strategy by a call-by-name strategy and its correctness is shown by exploiting infinite tress, which emerge by unfolding the letrec expressions. The second translation encodes letrec-expressions by using multi-fixpoint combinators and its correctness is shown syntactically by comparing reductions of both calculi. A further result of this paper is an isomorphism between the mentioned calculi, and also with a call-by-need letrec calculus with a less complex definition of reduction than LR.

- Extending Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus: (non)-conservativity of embeddings (2013)
- Our motivation is the question whether the lazy lambda calculus, a pure lambda calculus with the leftmost outermost rewriting strategy, considered under observational semantics, or extensions thereof, are an adequate model for semantic equivalences in real-world purely functional programming languages, in particular for a pure core language of Haskell. We explore several extensions of the lazy lambda calculus: addition of a seq-operator, addition of data constructors and case-expressions, and their combination, focusing on conservativity of these extensions. In addition to untyped calculi, we study their monomorphically and polymorphically typed versions. For most of the extensions we obtain non-conservativity which we prove by providing counterexamples. However, we prove conservativity of the extension by data constructors and case in the monomorphically typed scenario.

- Extending Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus: (non)-conservativity of embeddings (2013)
- Our motivation is the question whether the lazy lambda calculus, a pure lambda calculus with the leftmost outermost rewriting strategy, considered under observational semantics, or extensions thereof, are an adequate model for semantic equivalences in real-world purely functional programming languages, in particular for a pure core language of Haskell. We explore several extensions of the lazy lambda calculus: addition of a seq-operator, addition of data constructors and case-expressions, and their combination, focusing on conservativity of these extensions. In addition to untyped calculi, we study their monomorphically and polymorphically typed versions. For most of the extensions we obtain non-conservativity which we prove by providing counterexamples. However, we prove conservativity of the extension by data constructors and case in the monomorphically typed scenario.

- Simulation in the call-by-need lambda-calculus with letrec, case, constructors, and seq (2013)
- This paper shows equivalence of applicative similarity and contextual approximation, and hence also of bisimilarity and contextual equivalence, in LR, the deterministic call-by-need lambda calculus with letrec extended by data constructors, case-expressions and Haskell's seqoperator. LR models an untyped version of the core language of Haskell. Bisimilarity simplifies equivalence proofs in the calculus and opens a way for more convenient correctness proofs for program transformations. The proof is by a fully abstract and surjective transfer of the contextual approximation into a call-by-name calculus, which is an extension of Abramsky's lazy lambda calculus. In the latter calculus equivalence of similarity and contextual approximation can be shown by Howe's method. Using an equivalent but inductive definition of behavioral preorder we then transfer similarity back to the calculus LR. The translation from the call-by-need letrec calculus into the extended call-by-name lambda calculus is the composition of two translations. The first translation replaces the call-by-need strategy by a call-by-name strategy and its correctness is shown by exploiting infinite tress, which emerge by unfolding the letrec expressions. The second translation encodes letrec-expressions by using multi-fixpoint combinators and its correctness is shown syntactically by comparing reductions of both calculi. A further result of this paper is an isomorphism between the mentioned calculi, and also with a call-by-need letrec calculus with a less complex definition of reduction than LR.