Pagin, ‘Compositionality, computability, and complexity’
0.1. Definition. (Grammatical term algebra (§ 2.1)) A grammatical term algebra of a language is a partial algebra , where—
- is the set of grammatical terms for ,
- is a finite set of atomic (grammatical) terms for , and
- is a finite set of syntactic operations for . is the closure of under .
0.4. Definition. (Standard compositionality (§ 2.2)) Given a grammatical term algebra and domain of meanings, a semantic function is standard compositional iff for every -ary operation there is a meaning operation such that for any ,
0.5. Definition. (General compositionality (§ 2.3)) A semantic system is general compositional iff for every -ary operation and every member there is a meaning operation such that for any grammatical terms
where for
0.6. Definition. (Meaning algebras (§ 3)) A meaning algebra over a set of meanings is a triple , where—
- is a finite set of basic meanings,
- is a finite set of elementary meaning operations,
- closes under , and
for all and ,
and, if
then , , and for .
0.7. Definition. (Semantic systems (§ 3)) Given a grammatical term algebra and domain of meanings, a semantic system is a triple where—
- is a finite set of semantic functions , , and
- is a partial selection function.
Given some semantic function and a syntactic operation , then gives another semantic function for each th-position term.
Finally, .
0.8. Definition. (Semantic algebras (§ 3)) A semantic algebra over a language and domain of meanings is a triple
where—
- is a grammatical term algebra for , and
- is a meaning algebra for .
0.11. Definition. (Input complexity (§ 5)) Let be a normal term.
The term complexity of relative to is the length of the shortest derivation from some input term to .
The input complexity is the maximal where has size .
0.12. Definition. (Term rewrite systems (§ 6.1)) A term rewrite system (TRS) is a pair where—
- is a signature comprising a finite set of -ary operators (including nullary constants), and
- is a set of reductions over the set of terms over .
We will write (omitting the subscript where context makes it obvious) when the application of some rule yields the contractum .
A sequence of applications is a derivation. We write where is the transitive closure of .
0.19. Definition. (#{\mu}-systems (§ 6.1)) A -system is a pair where—
- (an object- and meta-language signature),
- where is a set of atomic terms and is a set of -ary syntactic operators, so that the closure of under yields the grammatical term algebra of OL,
- where—
- is a nonempty set of atomic meta-language expressions,
- is a nonempty set of meta-language syntactic operators,
- is a nonempty set of elementary meta-language function symbols,
- is a possibly empty set of meta-language recursive function symbols over object language terms, and
- is a possibly empty set of meta-language recursive function symbols over meta-language terms.
0.25. Definition. (Complex indirect constant #{\mu}-systems (§ 8.3.4)) A complex indirect constant -system must satisfy the following.
- is finite.
- For any rule, the rewrite variables on the rhs must be a subset of those on the left.
- Rewrite variables take all and only object language grammatical terms as instances.
- Rewrite variables take all and only expressions in as instances.
Every atomic rule is of the form
where , and is a simple or complex expression in .
- For every pair there is an atomic rule.
Every direct complex rule has the form
where Gr corresponds to grammaticality.
Every indirect complex rule has the form
where are optional and .
- For every pair , there is a unique complex (indirect or direct) rule.
Every indirect ground rule is of the -form
or the -form
where , , are operators over , and , and at most one of the primed operators is null.
Every indirect recurisve rule in has an -form
or -form
where , , are operators over , , and at most one of the primed operators is null.
0.27. Proposition. Let be any complex indirect constant -system satisfying the following.
- For every , there are object-language atoms such that for every , where and , for some canonical expression , , and .
The complex rule for is
There are rules
and
for each .
Then is intractable.
0.28. Lemma. Fix some and . Define
Moreover, define as the number of atomic leaves of .
For every object-language subterm of ,
Proof. By structural induction on .
If , has subterm , which must be reduced to eliminate to obtain a canonical form. Moreover, there is only one atomic leaf. So
Suppose . Normalisation requires elimination of the root of . Since the third argument has head , only
will do so. Every derivation (minimum-length or otherwise) will have to apply that rule at some point. Without loss of generality, apply it at the beginning. Then
Note is terminal by definition of complex indirect constant -systems. So
Proof. Now consider a minimum-length derivation of . There is some minimum-length derivation that begins
whence
whence .