# Lambda calculus

November 4, 2013 (Monday) reddit thisWe begin the exploration of type theory by describing lambda calculus. This post is mostly to set up the notation and the standard reference for material here is the encyclopedic book The lambda calculus: Its syntax and semantics. Also have a look on Wikipedia for details and references.

The core idea of lambda calculus is an elegant notation invented by Alonzo Church to capture functions without naming them. Consider the function that increments its argument by 1. In notation of lambda calculus one can write such an increment function as $λ x . x + 1$ (assuming of course that $+$ has already been defined). This notation has now found its way to many programming languages like Haskell (`\ x -> x + 1`

the backslash is an ASCII approximation of $λ$), python (`lambda x: x + 1`

) etc. The lambda calculus we deal with here does not have the *built-in* function like $+$. All it has is a (countably infinite) supply of variables, which we will denote by small case letters $x$, $y$, $z$ etc and two fundamental operation namely application and abstraction. The lambda calculus expressions can be inductively defined as follows:

$e = x | e_1 e_2 | λ x . e$

In the above inductive definition $x$ is any one of the countably infinite variables and $e_1$ and $e_2$ are lambda calculus expressions defined recursively. We will follow that standard convention that all application associates to the left (i.e. $f g h$ means $((f g) h)$) and that application binds tighter than $λ$-abstraction. Further, the the expression $λxy.xy$ means $λx . λy . xy$.

# Free and bound variables.

The lambda abstraction acts like any other mathematical quantifier when it comes to determining the free and bound variables. An occurrence of a variable in a expression is either free (i.e. is not in the scope of any $λ$-abstraction) or is bound to a lambda abstraction. If an occurrence of a variable $x$ is in the scope of more than one $λ$-abstraction then it is bound to the inner most one. For example in the expression $λx.xy$, $x$ is bound and $y$ is free. One can define the notion of free variables inductively as follows.

$FV(x) = \{ x\},$ $FV(e_1 e_2) = FV(e_1) ∪ FV(e_2),$ $FV(λx . e) = FV(e) ∖ \{x \}.$

As in other mathematical notations, the meaning of a lambda calculus expression depends only on the free variables, which means one can change the bound variables of an expression. For example the expression $λx . xy$ is the same as $λt. t y$. This change of bound variables is called $α$-conversion. When doing an $α$-conversion however, care must be taken to avoid variable bindings to be inadvertently changed. For example in the expression $λx.xy$, the variable x cannot be changed to $y$ as it is occurs free and changing $x$ to $y$ will make it bound. One can avoid such a situation if we always use fresh variables. We will assume from now on that all $α$-conversion takes care of this problem.

# $β$-reductions

The computational power of $λ$-calculus comes from what is known as $β$-reductions which formalises the notion of the $λ$-abstraction. The essence of $β$-reduction is that the expression $(λx. M)N$, under $β$-reduction, reduces to $M'$ where $M'$ is the expression $M$ with all *free* occurrences of $x$ replaced by $N$. However, we have to be careful to take care that no free variable in $N$ gets inadvertently bound as a result. For example consider the expression $M = λy.xy$ and $N=y$. If we blindly reduce $(λx.M) N$ then the free variable $y$ of $N$ gets bound. This is because a free occurrence of $x$ in $M$ comes in the scope of a $λy$ and $y$ happens to be free in $N$. To avoid this problem one can $α$-convert the $M$ to use a new bound variable instead of $y$. We assume from now on that each such $β$-reduction carefully avoids the free variable capture.

A *$β$-normal form* is an expression for which there are no more $β$-reductions possible. For example a variable is a normal form so is expressions of the kind $λx.x$. One can think of this as a program that has terminated. We say that an expression $M$ *has* a normal form if there is normal form $N$ to which it can be reduced after a series of finitely many $β$-reductions. Expressions might have a normal form or can diverge and it is *undecidable* to check which is the case. However, a consequence of the Church-Rosser theorem is that if an expression has a normal form then it should be unique.

A *reduction strategy* is an algorithm to choose which sub-term of a lambda calculus expression should be $β$-reduced next. Clearly there is no strategy that will terminate always as there are terms which do not have a normal form. Can we have a strategy which will guarantee termination if the expression has a normal form? Fortunately the *normal order* evaluation strategy is normalising, i.e. it finds a $β$-normal form if it exists (See Lambda Calculus for more details). Therefore, the problem of finding the normal form is *partially recursive* in the sense that one can write a program to compute the normal form of an expression if it has one.

# Fixed points and recursion

It might not appear so but hidden inside the simplicity of lambda calculus is a full fledged programming language. With appropriate encoding of natural numbers (see for example Church encoding) one can represent all computable functions. This is the Church-Turing hypothesis. While we do not want to go into the details of this, we will show how to implement one important feature namely recursive definition of functions.

An important property of untyped lambda calculus is that every lambda calculus function $F$ has a *fixed point*: given $F$, consider the expression $X = λx. F(xx)$. One can easily show that the term $XX$ $β$-reduces to $F(XX)$ and is therefore the fixed point of $F$. Furthermore, the computation of fixed point is effective as well, i.e. we have a lambda calculus combinator for computing it: Consider for example the combinator (i.e. lambda calculus term with no free variable) $Y$ defined as $Y = λf . (λx . f(xx))(λx. f(xx))$ It is easy to verify that $YF$ is the fixed point for $F$. Existence of fixed point combinator is important as that is what allows us to define functions recursively. A recursive definition $f = F(f)$ is nothing but the fixed point of the function $F$. The fact that it is effective make it possible for the compiler to support recursive functions. Fixed point theorem also allows mutual recursion. For this one has to have a way of *pairing* values into tuples which can be done in lambda calculus by suitable encoding (see the Lambda calculus#Pairs). The reset of the details I leave it as an exercise.