The standard approach to simply typed lambda calculus considers computations over Church numerals. If input and outputs are Church numerals always typed as $Int$, where $Int = (\tau \rightarrow \tau) \rightarrow \tau \rightarrow \tau $, a result of Schwichtenberg showed that expressible functions are the extended polynomials.

If inputs are Church numerals given more complex types than $Int$, exponentiation and predecessor can be expressed (however Statman showed that equality, ordering and subtraction are not expressibile for any typing of church numerals.

However we should be more permissive and provide only an output restriction: a boolean type ( $Bool = \tau \rightarrow \tau \rightarrow \tau $). Under this convention, Statman's theorem that "deciding equivalence of normal forms of two simply typed lambda-terms is not elementary recursive" can be seen as an expressibility result (right?): we can express nonelementary functions.

Pushing to the limit, where we can arrive? Of course (by strong normalization) we can express only total functions. But I'm asking if there is a precise upper bound to simply typed lambda calculus expressive power.

I've found many articles, in particular "On the expressive power of simply typed and let-polymorphic lambda calculi" but I'm not able to understand if it is what I'm looking for.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A base type is never equal to a function type (a mistake appearing twice in this question). I think you're trying to say that the final output of a function type is a particular base type, which is different. $\endgroup$ Jul 28 '12 at 19:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @HuckBennett: That is false. The encoding for the type of Church numerals in the simply typed lambda calculus is (A -> A) -> A -> A where the numerals are defined as usual. Likewise the type of the booleans is indeed A -> A -> A where true = \x . \y . x and false = \x . \y . y. $\endgroup$
    – Anthony
    Jul 29 '12 at 3:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Anthony: My mistake. I didn't realize that Church encodings were used except in the untyped lambda calculus. $\endgroup$ Jul 29 '12 at 7:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why does “deciding equivalence of normal forms of two simply typed lambda-terms is not elementary recursive” imply that you can express nonelementary functions? I do not think that there is any guarantee that equivalence can be expressed. $\endgroup$ Jul 29 '12 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Looking forward for this answer in 2015, any luck yet? $\endgroup$
    – MaiaVictor
    Oct 5 '15 at 19:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.