#Typed lambda terms#
-Given a set of types `T`, we define the set of typed lambda terms <code>&Lamda;_T</code>,
+Given a set of types `T`, we define the set of typed lambda terms <code>Λ_T</code>,
which is the smallest set such that
* each type `t` has an infinite set of distinct variables, {x^t}_1,
σ, then the application `(M N)` has type τ.
* If a variable `a` has type σ, and term `M` has type τ,
- then the abstract `λ a M` has type `σ --> τ`.
+ then the abstract <code>λ a M</code> has type σ --> τ.
The definitions of types and of typed terms should be highly familiar
-to semanticists, except that instead of writing `σ --> τ`,
-linguists (following Montague, who followed Church) write `<σ,
-τ>`. We will use the arrow notation, since it is more iconic.
+to semanticists, except that instead of writing σ --> τ,
+linguists (following Montague, who followed Church) write <σ,
+τ>. We will use the arrow notation, since it is more iconic.
Some examples (assume that `x` has type `o`):
have types `a`, `b`, `c`, and `d`, respectively, then `f` has type `a
--> b --> c --> d == (a --> (b --> (c --> d)))`.
-It is a serious faux pas to associate to the left for types, on a par
-with using your salad fork to stir your tea.
+It is a serious faux pas to associate to the left for types. You may
+as well use your salad fork to stir your tea.
#The simply-typed lambda calculus is strongly normalizing#
-If `M` is a term with type τ in `Λ_T`, then `M` has a
+If `M` is a term with type τ in Λ_T, then `M` has a
normal form. The proof is not particularly complex, but we will not
present it here; see Berendregt or Hankin.
Since Ω does not have a normal form, it follows that Ω
-cannot have a type in `Λ_T`. We can easily see why:
+cannot have a type in Λ_T. We can easily see why:
Ω = (\x.xx)(\x.xx)
Version 1 type numerals are not a good choice for the simply-typed
lambda calculus. The reason is that each different numberal has a
-different type! For instance, if zero has type σ, and `false`
-has type `τ --> τ --> τ` for some τ, and one is
-represented by the function `\x.x false 0`, then one must have type
-`(τ --> τ --> &tau) --> &sigma --> σ`. But this is a
-different type than zero! Because numbers have different types, it
-becomes impossible to write arithmetic operations that can combine
-zero with one. We would need as many different addition operations as
-we had pairs of numbers that we wanted to add.
+different type! For instance, if zero has type σ, then `false`
+has type τ --> τ --> &tau, for some τ. Since one is
+represented by the function `\x.x false 0`, one must have type `(τ
+--> τ --> &tau) --> &sigma --> σ`. But this is a different
+type than zero! Because each number has a different type, it becomes
+impossible to write arithmetic operations that can combine zero with
+one. We would need as many different addition operations as we had
+pairs of numbers that we wanted to add.
Fortunately, the Church numberals are well behaved with respect to
-types. They can all be given the type `(σ --> σ) -->
-σ --> σ`.
+types. They can all be given the type (σ --> σ) -->
+σ --> σ.