Trees

[Chung-chieh Shan]

On 2004-06-30T20:19:52-0400, Carl Pollard wrote:
> But that point of view is inconsistent with treating the tree as a structural
> representation. Why? It is because proofs are in one-to-one ("Curry-Howard")
> correspondence with terms of a typed lambda calculus (TLC), and what
> is significant is not the proof itself but rather its equivalence class,
> where two proofs are considered equivalent if the corresponding terms are
> equivalent in the usual sense of TLC term equivalence.

Does this comment suggest a view of trees as structural representations
that identifies derivation steps on trees with normalizing reductions on
proofs?

	Ken

-- 
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
It is dry and hot, but cloudy, in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Do Ken. Ken Do Ken Do. Do Ken Do Ken Do Ken Do. Ken. Do. Ken.
"The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to address
the effect of the previous general resolution."  - Debian Project Secretary
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/hpsg-l/attachments/20040711/c1197b0a/attachment.sig>