I have a question about the way to express the converse of the deduction theorem in type theory. In simple type theory, the deduction theorem can be easily expressed by the introduction rule for $\rightarrow$, namely: $$\frac{\Gamma, x:A\vdash b(x):B}{\Gamma\vdash(\lambda x)b(x):A\rightarrow B.} $$ The converse of the deduction theorem also holds, from a logical point of view. But I wonder how it is expressed in type theory. Thanks a lot!
2026-03-25 11:10:39.1774437039
Converse of Deduction Theorem in Type Theory
166 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in NATURAL-DEDUCTION
- Predicate logic: Natural deduction: Introducing universal quantifier
- Deduce formula from set of formulas
- Prove the undecidability of a formula
- Natural deduction proof for $(P\to\lnot Q)\to(\lnot P \lor\lnot Q)$
- How do I build a proof in natural deduction?
- Deductive Logic Proof
- Can the natural deduction system prove $P \iff ¬P$ to show that it's a contradiction?
- Exercises and solutions for natural deduction proofs in Robinson and Peano arithmetic
- How would I show that X is equivalent to ((¬X ↔ X ) ∨ X )?
- Equivalence proof by using identities and ‘n series of substitutions: (P ⋁ Q) → (P ⋀ Q) ≡ (P → Q) ⋀ (Q → P).
Related Questions in TYPE-THEORY
- Are Proofs of Dependent Pair Types Equivalent to Finding an Inverse Function?
- Types as formulas?
- Dependent vs. polymorphic types in modern type theories
- What in general is a recursor?
- 'Logically symmetric' expressions in lambda calculus
- (Higher order) logic/type theory/category theory like (meta-)grammar/language/machine?
- Cardinal collapse and (higher) toposes
- Does Diaconescu's theorem imply cubical type theory is non-constructive?
- Dependent type theory: universes may have a type?
- Define $\neg\neg A$ to be truncation using LEM
Related Questions in LAMBDA-CALCULUS
- Finding a term $s$ such that for all terms $t$, $st$ = $ss$
- 'Logically symmetric' expressions in lambda calculus
- Who introduced the Kite to Smullyan's combinator birds?
- Can F be diverging in "forall M FM = F"?
- First-Order Logic: Simplifying $\exists x. (P(x))\,(\lambda y.see(y,x))$
- Encoding of booleans in lambda calculus
- parentheses in free and bound variable in lambda calculus
- Define lambda calculus encoding for boolean implication (⇒)
- Beta reduction in Lambda-Calculus
- Normative vs applicative order in reduction in the Lambda Calculus
Related Questions in INTUITIONISTIC-LOGIC
- Are Proofs of Dependent Pair Types Equivalent to Finding an Inverse Function?
- Prove the undecidability of a formula
- Semantics for minimal logic
- Is minimal logic equivalent to intuitionistic?
- How do set theories base on Intuitionistic Logic deal with ordinals?
- Why is intuitionistic modelling called forcing?
- Attempt at constructive proof of compactness of [0,1], does this use LEM? Does a constructive proof exist?
- Is there a theorem that can easily be proved to be non intuitionistic?
- Interpretation of implication in intuitionistic logic
- $\mathbb Q$ topological semantics for intuitionistic propositional logic
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
In type theory, the converse of deduction theorem holds from a logical point of view: as explained here, if $\Gamma \vdash A \to B$ is derivable then $\Gamma, A \vdash B$ is derivable. But the $\lambda$-term associated with the derivation of $\Gamma, A \vdash B$ in the converse of the deduction theorem is not the $\lambda$-term associated with the derivation of $\Gamma, A \vdash B$ in the deduction theorem.
Indeed, suppose that $\Gamma \vdash A \to B$ is derivable. We can suppose without loss of generality that $A \notin \Gamma$, because it is immediate to prove that if $\Gamma \vdash A \to B$ is derivable then $\Gamma, A \vdash A \to B$ (I assume the logical rules of the deductive system are the ones listed here). Now, consider a derivation of $\Gamma, A \vdash A \to B$. Which is the $\lambda$-term associated with such a derivation? When decorated with $\lambda$-terms, the conclusion of the derivation is something of the form $\Gamma, x : A \vdash t : A \to B$. Note that $t$ need not be of the form $\lambda x.b$: for instance, $t$ could be a variable, provided that $A \to B \in \Gamma$.
According to the rules of simple type theory, we can then build the following derivation (a "converse" of the deduction theorem):
$$ \dfrac{\qquad \vdots \\ \Gamma, x : A \vdash t : A \to B \qquad \dfrac{}{\Gamma, x : A \vdash x : A}{\scriptstyle\text{ax}}}{\Gamma, x : A \vdash tx : B}\to_\text{elim} $$
Not that the $\lambda$-term $tx$ is different from the $\lambda$-term $b$ that decorates the derivation of $\Gamma, A \vdash B$ in the deduction theorem.