\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\title{B\"ohm's Theorem in Abella}
\author{Andrea Condoluci}
\date{June 30, 2017}

\newcommand{\lc}[0]{{$\lambda$-calculus}}
\newcommand{\bohm}[0]{{B\"ohm}}
\newcommand{\TODO}[1]{\textcolor{red}{\textbf{TODO} #1}}

\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{amsmath, amsthm, amssymb}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{cleveref}

\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem*{theoren}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
% \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem*{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem*{notation}{Notation}
\newtheorem*{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}


\begin{document}

\maketitle

Segue una presentazione del progetto di ricerca che effettuerei presso il \textit{Laboratoire d'informatique de l'\'Ecole polytechnique} di Parigi, con il supporto economico del programma Marco Polo.

\begin{abstract}
 \TODO{...}
\end{abstract}

\section*{Introduction}

% \subsubsection*{Lambda Calculus}
 \textit{Pure lambda calculus} (which we call \lc) was originally conceived by Church, being intended as a general theory of functions which could serve as foundation for mathematics.
 Its syntax is based on two basic conceptual operations: $\lambda$-abstraction and application. Since \lc{} can represent computable functions, it is considered an idealized functional programming language, where $\beta$-reduction corresponds to a computational step.

 \TODO{In the following, we write $\equiv_\beta$ for equality of the terms up to $\alpha$-conversion (renaming of bound variables) and $\beta$-reduction. $\eta$-convertibility corresponds to extensionality, that means considering equal those functions which give same output on the same inputs.}

\subsubsection*{Separation Theorem}
 Among the most important results for \lc{} (like fixpoint, Church-Rosser, and normalization theorems) is the \textit{separation theorem} (also known as \bohm's theorem \cite{bohm}).

 Even though this theorem may seem a basically syntactical property, its importance lays on showing that the syntactical constructions and the reduction rules of \lc{} work well together \cite{DBLP:conf/lics/Saurin05}. In particular, two essential consequences are:

 \begin{enumerate}
  \item any non-trivial model of the \lc{} cannot identify different $\beta\eta$-normal forms;
  \item normal forms can be explored by the only means of computational rules.
 \end{enumerate}

 Intuitively, \bohm's theorem states that when two $\lambda$-terms are syntactically different, then one can put them in the context of a bigger $\lambda$ program s.t. they reduce to two clearly different terms. By \textit{context} (denoted by $E[\,]$) we mean a $\lambda$-term with a hole ($[\,]$ is the hole), such that $E[M]$ is the $\lambda$-term obtained by replacing in $E[\,]$ the holes $[\,]$ with $M$.

\begin{theoren}[\bohm{} theorem]
 Let $M$, $N$ be $\beta\eta$-distinct $\lambda$-terms in normal form; then there exists a context $E[\,]$ such that:
 \[\begin{array}{ll}
  E[M] & \equiv_{\beta} \operatorname{true} \text{, and}\\
  E[N] & \equiv_{\beta} \operatorname{false}, \\
 \end{array}\]
 where $\operatorname{true}:=\lambda x\,y.\,x$ and $\operatorname{false}:=\lambda x\,y.\,y$.
\end{theoren}
The proof of this theorem is carried out by induction on so-called \textit{\bohm{} trees} (syntax trees computed from the normal forms), and by means of \textit{\bohm{} transformations}. The technique used in the proof is called ``\bohm-out'', and is a powerful tool that was applied to separation in other $\lambda$-theories.

Let's now make some remarks which will be useful in the last section.

Firstly, note that easy consequence of the theorem is the following:

\begin{corollary}
 Let $M$, $N$ be $\beta\eta$-distinct $\lambda$-terms in normal form; then there exists a context $E[\,]$ such that $E[M]$ has a normal form, and $E[N]$ has no normal form.
\end{corollary}

This last formulation of \bohm's theorem is clearly related to the \textit{observational} or \textit{contextual equivalence} \cite{morris}, which was born at the times of the \bohm's theorem. Two terms are said to be \textit{observationally equivalent} if, when put in the same context, either they both converge to a normal form, or they both diverge. Intuitively, terms are observationally equivalent if they behave in the same way, when ``observed'' from the outside.

It is now clear that \bohm's theorem actually states that, in the case of terms with a normal form, observational equivalence coincides with $\beta\eta$-convertibility.

Note that the original proof of \bohm's theorem is \textit{constructive}: it consists of an actual algorithm which, given two $\beta\eta$-distinct $\lambda$-terms, constructs a corresponding discriminating context. Such algorithm was implemented in CAML in \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/Huet93}, but to my knowledge it was never formalized in a \textit{proof assistant}. A formalization would yield a verified implementation (proven to be correct, and to comply with its specification) of the algorithm; in addition, it would add up to the pile of formalized mathematical knowledge, allowing other researchers to build on top of it.

\subsubsection*{Abella}
The plan is to formalize \bohm's theorem in Abella. Abella is an interactive theorem prover based on lambda-tree syntax \cite{DBLP:conf/cade/Gacek08}, and it is intended for reasoning about object languages whose syntactic structure is presented through recursive rules.

% Two-level logic approach....

% Examples: in the \lc, equivalence of big-step and small-step evaluation.

\section*{Outcomes}

\section*{Future work}
 The computer formalization of \bohm{}'s theorem would be a convenient result on its own
 sake; nevertheless, it poses a solid starting point to provide formal proofs of similar separation results in other $\lambda$-theories and other $\lambda$-calculi. %, for example in extensions of \lc, or according to different evaluation strategies.

 For example, the problem of separating $\lambda$-terms popped up inevitably while working with Prof. Claudio Sacerdoti Coen on the observational equality of a calculus in call-by-value called \textit{fireball calculus} \cite{fireball}.

 \TODO{}

 \TODO{fireball calculus, and the algorithm we are dessigning}

 Once done with the formalization, we will adapt the formal proof to the algorithm which we are currently designing for the fireball calculus.
% e si potrebbe estendere la prova al nostro mostro


\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{statement}

\end{document}
