2000
DOI: 10.1007/10721975_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A de Bruijn Notation for Higher-Order Rewriting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Then, the metasubstitution sigma = {X plus(0, 0), M 0, N 0} is not l-constructor for β PM , but the metasubstitution theta = {X a 0, s(x) , M a 0, x , N plus (3,4)} is l-constructor for it. As explained in the introduction of this section, ERSPs need to be l-constructor in order to guarantee confluence.…”
Section: Definition 53 (L-constructor Metasubstitutions) a Metasubstmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Then, the metasubstitution sigma = {X plus(0, 0), M 0, N 0} is not l-constructor for β PM , but the metasubstitution theta = {X a 0, s(x) , M a 0, x , N plus (3,4)} is l-constructor for it. As explained in the introduction of this section, ERSPs need to be l-constructor in order to guarantee confluence.…”
Section: Definition 53 (L-constructor Metasubstitutions) a Metasubstmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This formalism can be seen as an extension of ERSs [16] and SERSs [4] to the case of patterns, and an extension of [15] to the case of nonfunctional rewrite rules. Many simple notions in the mentioned previous works do not trivially extend to our case: on the one hand, the complexity of ERSPs does not only appear at the level of metaterms but also at the level of terms; on the other hand, binders are not always so simple as in the case of λ-calculus.…”
Section: Conclusion and Further Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations