Is the following manuscript publically available?

Dana Scott, 1969, A theory of computable functions of higher type. Unpublished seminar notes, 7 pages, University of Oxford.

There is a discussion of this paper in section 8.1.2, Types as sets, in Cardone & Hindley, 2006 History of Lambda-calculus and Combinatory Logic; additionally section 10.1, Domain theory, traces back to this manuscript some crucial order-theoretic insights.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Did you try emailing him? dana.scott@cs.cmu.edu $\endgroup$ – Tyson Williams Jun 9 '11 at 22:05
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Dana is reading this... $\endgroup$ – Andrej Bauer Jun 10 '11 at 16:55

Published as:

Scott, D. A Type-Theoretical Alternative to ISWIM, CUCH, OWHY. Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 121 (1993), pp. 411 - 440.

See also:

Scott, D. Some Reflections on Strachey and his Work. in: A Special Issue Dedicated to Christopher Strachey, edited by O. Danvy and C. Talcott. Higer-Order and Symbolic Computation, vol. 13 (2000), pp. 103-114.


Gordon D. Plotkin, Set-theoretical and other elementary models of the λ-calculus, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 121 (1993), pp. 351-409.

  • 17
    $\begingroup$ It's a special kind of awesome when the author themself shows up to answer a question ! $\endgroup$ – Suresh Venkat Jun 10 '11 at 19:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Especially when the author is Dana Scott. :) $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Jun 10 '11 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ first Turing award winner on cstheory, or am i missing someone? $\endgroup$ – Sasho Nikolov Jun 10 '11 at 20:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And I saw Gordon Plotkin walking past the restaurant window in Iceland yesterday.... $\endgroup$ – Dave Clarke Jun 10 '11 at 21:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Well, this is wonderful and thank you - I assume I should thank Andrej as well for receiving this answer. A further question: are the two 1969 titles really used to denote one unchanging manuscript? John Longley, 2010, Notions of computability at higher types I, describes the paper as 7 pages long, while the 1969 parts of the 1993 paper weigh in at just under 26 pages. $\endgroup$ – Charles Stewart Jun 11 '11 at 12:41

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.