By operations on models we show how to relate completeness with respect to permissivenominal models to completeness with respect to nominal models with finite support. Models with finite support are a special case of permissive-nominal models, so the construction hinges on generating from an instance of the latter, some instance of the former in which sufficiently many inequalities are preserved between elements. We do this using an infinite generalisation of nominal atoms-abstraction. The results are of interest in their own right, (...) but also, we factor the mathematics so as to maximise the chances that it could be used off-the-shelf for other nominal reasoning systems too. Models with infinite support can be easier to work with, so it is useful to have a semi-automatic theorem to transfer results from classes of infinitely-supported nominal models to the more restricted class of models with finite support. In conclusion, we consider different permissive-nominal syntaxes and nominal models and discuss how they relate to the results proved here. (shrink)

We are used to the idea that computers operate on numbers, yet another kind of data is equally important: the syntax of formal languages, with variables, binding, and alpha-equivalence. The original application of nominal techniques, and the one with greatest prominence in this paper, is to reasoning on formal syntax with variables and binding. Variables can be modelled in many ways: for instance as numbers (since we usually take countably many of them); as links (since they may `point' to a (...) binding site in the term, where they are bound); or as functions (since they often, though not always, represent `an unknown'). None of these models is perfect. In every case for the models above, problems arise when trying to use them as a basis for a fully formal mechanical treatment of formal language. The problems are practical—but their underlying cause may be mathematical. The issue is not whether formal syntax exists, since clearly it does, so much as what kind of mathematical structure it is. To illustrate this point by a parody, logical derivations can be modelled using a Gödel encoding (i.e., injected into the natural numbers). It would be false to conclude from this that proof-theory is a branch of number theory and can be understood in terms of, say, Peano's axioms. Similarly, as it turns out, it is false to conclude from the fact that variables can be encoded e.g., as numbers, that the theory of syntax-with-binding can be understood in terms of the theory of syntax-without-binding, plus the theory of numbers (or, taking this to a logical extreme, purely in terms of the theory of numbers). It cannot; something else is going on. What that something else is, has not yet been fully understood. In nominal techniques, variables are an instance of names, and names are data. We model names using urelemente with properties that, pleasingly enough, turn out to have been investigated by Fraenkel and Mostowski in the first half of the 20th century for a completely different purpose than modelling formal language. What makes this model really interesting is that it gives names distinctive properties which can be related to useful logic and programming principles for formal syntax. Since the initial publications, advances in the mathematics and presentation have been introduced piecemeal in the literature. This paper provides in a single accessible document an updated development of the foundations of nominal techniques. This gives the reader easy access to updated results and new proofs which they would otherwise have to search across two or more papers to find, and full proofs that in other publications may have been elided. We also include some new material not appearing elsewhere. (shrink)

We build on an existing a term-sequent logic for the λ-calculus. We formulate a general sequent system that fully integrates αβη-reductions between untyped λ-terms into first order logic. We prove a cut-elimination result and then offer an application of cut-elimination by giving a notion of uniform proof for λ-terms. We suggest how this allows us to view the calculus of untyped αβ-reductions as a logic programming language (as well as a functional programming language, as it is traditionally seen).