In this episode, I shoot down last episode's proposal -- at least in the version I discussed -- based on an amazing observation from an astonishing paper, "Gödel’s system T revisited", by Alves, Fernández, Florido, and Mackie. Linear System T is diverging, as they reveal through a short but clever example. It is even diverging if one requires that the iterator can only be reduced when the function to be iterated is closed (no free variables). This extraordinary observation does not sink Victor's idea of basing type theory on a terminating untyped core language, but it does sink the specific language he and I were thinking about, namely affine lambda calculus plus structural recursion.

In this episode, I discuss an intriguing idea proposed by Victor Taelin, to base a logically sound type theory on an untyped but terminating language, upon which one may then erect as exotic a type system as one wishes. By enforcing termination already for the untyped language, we no longer have to make the type system do the heavy work of enforcing termination.

I correct what I said in the last episode about the author of the proof of FD from last episode based on intersection types. I also describe AI flopping when I ask it a question about this.

Krivine's book (Section 4.2) has a proof of the Finite Developments Theorem, based on intersection types. I discuss this proof in this episode.

I discuss the paper "A Direct Proof of the Finite Developments Theorem", by Roel de Vrijer. See also the write-up at my blog.

The finite developments theorem in pure lambda calculus says that if you select as set of redexes in a lambda term and reduce only those and their residuals (redexes that can be traced back as existing in the original set), then this process will always terminate. In this episode, I discuss the theorem and why I got interested in it.

In this episode, I discuss the paper Nominal Techniques in Isabelle/HOL, by Christian Urban. This paper shows how to reason with terms modulo alpha-equivalence, using ideas from nominal logic. The basic idea is that instead of renamings, one works with permutations of names.

I discuss what is called the locally nameless representation of syntax with binders, following the first couple of sections of the very nicely written paper "The Locally Nameless Representation," by Charguéraud. I complain due to the statement in the paper that "the theory of λ-calculus identifies terms that are α-equivalent," which is simply not true if one is considering lambda calculus as defined by Church, where renaming is an explicit reduction step, on a par with beta-reduction. I also answer a listener's question about what "computational type theory" means.

Feel free to email me any time at aaron.stump@bc.edu, or join the Telegram group for the podcast.