added proof of SN for T+ind

diff --git a/helm/papers/system_T/t.tex b/helm/papers/system_T/t.tex
index 7804118ab5a00d8284195acd07f3dc8460dba1be..5aece0cd677aead6dd461477741d0f0684428d15 100644 (file)
--- a/helm/papers/system_T/t.tex
+++ b/helm/papers/system_T/t.tex
@@ -624,10 +624,62 @@ that $f_i \R \triUP\{C(X)_i, c_i\} \equiv \vec{\forall m:T}.\vec{\forall
 t:X.Q(t)} \to Q(c_i~\vec{m}~\vec{t})$, thus $f_i~\vec{m}~\vec{t~r} \R
 Q(c_i~\vec{m}~\vec{t})$.
 \end{proof}
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\section{Strong normalization of extended system T}
+Strong normalization for system T is a well know result\cite{GLT}
+that can be easily extended to System T with this kind of inductive
+types. The first thing we have to do is to extend the definition of
+neutral term to the terms not of the form $<u,v>$, $\lambda x.u$,
+$c_i~\vec{m}$.
+
+In conformity with the demonstration we are extending we call $\nu(t)$
+the length of the longest reduction path from $t$ and $\ell(t)$ the
+number of symbols in the normal form of $t$.
+
+For an inductive type  $\ind\{c_1:C(X); \ldots ; c_n:C(X)\}$
+we have to prove that for each $i$, 
+given a proper sequence of reducible arguments $\vec{m}$ and $\vec{f}$,
+$(c_i~\vec{m})$ and $\Rx~\vec{f}~(c_i~\vec{m})$ are reducible.
+
+First the simple case of constructors. If the constructor $c_i$ takes
+no arguments then it is already in normal form. If it takes
+$m_1,\ldots,m_n$ reducible arguments, then $\nu(c_i~\vec{m}) = max \{m_1,
+\ldots,m_n\}$ and so $c_i~\vec{m}$ is strongly nomalizable thus
+reducible for the definition of reducibility for base types. 
+
+To show that $\Rx~\vec{f}~(c_i~\vec{m})$ is reducible we can use 
+(\textbf{CR 3}) that states that if $t$ is neutral and every $t'$ obtained by
+executing one redex of $t$ is reducible, then $t$ is reducible.
+
+Now we have to show that each term that can be obtained by a
+reduction step is reducible. We can procede induction on 
+$\Sigma\nu(f_i) + \nu(c_i~\vec{m}) +
+\ell(c_i~\vec{m})$ since we know by  hypothesis that $\vec{f}$ and
+$(c_i~\vec{m})$ are reducible and consequently strongly normalizing.
+\\
+The base case is when $c_i$ takes no arguments and $\vec{f}$ are
+normal. In this case the only redex we can compute is 
+$$\Rx~\vec{f}~c_i~\leadsto~f_i$$ that is reducible by hypothesis.
+\\
+The interesting inductive case is when $\vec{m}$ and $\vec{f}$ are
+normal, so the only reduction step we can execute is
+$$\Rx~\vec{f}~(c_i~\vec{m})~\leadsto~f_i~\vec{m}~\vec{(\Rx~\vec{f}~n)}$$
+where $\vec{n}$ are the recursive arguments of $c_i$ (here we wrote
+the recursive calls as the last parameters of $f_i$ just to  lighten
+notation). Since $\ell(n_j)$ is less than $\ell(c_i~\vec{m})$ for
+every $j$ we can apply the inductive hypothesis and state that
+$\Rx~\vec{f}~n_j$ is reducible.  Then by definition of reducibility of
+the arrow types and by the hypothesis that $f_i$ and $\vec{m}$ are
+reducible, we obtain that $$f_i~\vec{m}~\vec{(\Rx~\vec{f}~n)}$$ is
+reducible.
+\\
+All other cases, when we execute a redex in $\vec{m}$ or $\vec{f}$,
+are straightforward applications of the induction hypothesis.
+
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\section{Improoving inductive types}
-It is possible to parametrize inductive types over other inductive types
+\section{Improving inductive types}
+It is possible to parametrise inductive types over other inductive types
 without much difficulties since the type $T$ in $C(X)$ is free. Both the
 recursor and the induction principle are schemas, parametric over $T$.