Recursive function theory
2 Plans towards a programming language
Well-known concepts are taken from [Mon:MatLog], but several new notations (only notations, not concepts) are introduced to reflect all concepts described in [Mon:MatLog], and some simplification are made (by allowing zero-arity generalizations). These are plans to achive formalizations that can allow us in the future to incarnate the main concepts of recursive function theory in a programming language.
2.1 Primitive recursive functions
2.1.1 Type system
2.1.2 Base functions
Question: is the well-known approach superfluous? Can we avoid it and use the more simple and indirect approach, if we generalize operations (especially composition) to deal with zero-arity cases in an approprate way? E.g., and , too? Does it take a generalization to allow, or can it be inferred?
18.104.22.168 Succesor function
22.214.171.124 Projection functions
For all :
This resembles to the combinator of Combinatory logic (as described in [HasFeyCr:CombLog1, 171]). If we prefer avoiding the notion of the nested tuple, and use a more homogenous style (somewhat resembling to currying):
Let underbrace not mislead us -- it does not mean any bracing.
remembering us to
126.96.36.199 Primitive recursion
The last equation resembles to the combinator of Combinatory logic (as described in [HasFeyCr:CombLog1, 169]):
2.2 General recursive functions
Everything seen above, and the new concepts:
2.2.1 Type system
See the definition of being special [Mon:MathLog, 45]. This property ensures, that minimalization does not lead us out of the world of total functions. Its definition is the rather straightforward formalization of this expectation.
Minimalization does not lead us out of the word of total functions, if we use it only for special functions -- the property of being special is defined exactly for this purpose [Mon:MatLog, 45].
2.3 Partial recursive functions
Everything seen above, but new constructs are provided, too.
2.3.1 Type system
Question: is there any sense to define in another way than simply ? Partial constants?
Their definitions are straightforward.
- Curry, Haskell B; Feys, Robert; Craig, William: Combinatory Logic. Volume I. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1958.
- Monk, J. Donald: Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, New York * Heidelberg * Berlin, 1976.