Paper detail

On the discriminating power of tests in resource lambda-calculus

Since its discovery, differential linear logic (DLL) inspired numerous domains. In denotational semantics, categorical models of DLL are now commune, and the simplest one is Rel, the category of sets and relations. In proof theory this naturally gave birth to differential proof nets that are full and complete for DLL. In turn, these tools can naturally be translated to their intuitionistic counterpart. By taking the co-Kleisly category associated to the ! comonad, Rel becomes MRel, a model of the \Lcalcul that contains a notion of differentiation. Proof nets can be used naturally to extend the \Lcalcul into the lambda calculus with resources, a calculus that contains notions of linearity and differentiations. Of course MRel is a model of the \Lcalcul with resources, and it has been proved adequate, but is it fully abstract? That was a strong conjecture of Bucciarelli, Carraro, Ehrhard and Manzonetto. However, in this paper we exhibit a counter-example. Moreover, to give more intuition on the essence of the counter-example and to look for more generality, we will use an extension of the resource \Lcalcul also introduced by Bucciarelli et al for which $\Minf$ is fully abstract, the tests.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.