# STLC Redux: Part II

25 March 2013

Clojure/West was a blast and I'm happy that Michael Fogus's joke became a reality with 140+ attendees. All the presentations were great, in particular I enjoyed Adam Foltzer's talk on implementing a logic programming system in Haskell, Ryan Senior's tutorial on the new finite domain functionality in core.logic, and of course Dan Friedman and Will Byrd's relational CESK machine.

Nada Amin's talk on nominal logic programming was stellar but I think it may have seemed a bit too far into the deep end for some of the attendees. In this post I'd like to explain some of the interesting bits of her talk at a much slower pace. I hope you'll see that nominal logic programming is really a simple idea in the end.

Whether we know it or not, when we use a functional programming language we benefit heavily from the formalism of the lambda calculus (now would be a good time to re-read my earlier post). We're going to go further by actually running bits of the formalism. I recommend cloning Nada's talk repo firing up your favorite REPL, and we'll step through it together.

Again the idea here is to build up an informal understanding (which is all I have to offer anyway ;)

Let's look at the very first example:

(run* [q]
(nom/fresh [a b]
(== (lam a a) (lam b b))))

If you've used miniKanren or core.logic before you may notice that we seem to have a new primitive nom/fresh. This primitive is similar to fresh but instead of creating fresh logic variables, it creates fresh noms. What are noms? They are like identifiers/names in programming languages. What they buy us over traditional logic variables is that we can use them to reason about scope.

But before we get into scope let's break down what the program above means. If we were to write this in a more standard notation we might write it in following manner:

$$\lambda a.a \equiv_{\alpha} \, \lambda b.b$$

Testing functions for equality is tricky business, however we can overload unification in the core.logic program above to mean a more limited form of function equality - up to alpha equivalence.

By alpha equivalence we simply mean that the two lambda terms are equal up to the names - we can see here the names (or noms) don't really matter.

In fact if we run this example, and I recommend that you do, we'll get back $_$$_0, meaning that this set of constraints is satisfiable! Now consider the following example: (run* [q] (nom/fresh [a b c] (== (lam a a) (lam b c)))) Will this work? No. \mathtt{c} occurs free in the second lambda expression. We don't know where that \mathtt{c} comes from, so these terms can't possibly represent the same thing. Thus:$$\lambda a.a \not\equiv_{\alpha} \, \lambda b.c$$If we run the program above we'll get the expected dreaded empty list which lets us know the constraints cannot be satisfied. Let's break this down further,$\mathtt{lam}$is actually hiding away the nominal logic programming primitives, if we dig in we'll see that it is defined in the following manner: (defn lam [x e] `(~'fn ~(nom/tie x e))) It just takes two values, a nom and an expression. It then constructs a Clojure sequence which which starts with the symbol$\mathtt{fn}$. This is just to ensure that the output is comprehensible and importantly - executable Clojure code. The body of the function is something we haven't see before$\mathtt{nom/tie}$.$\mathtt{nom/tie}$takes a nom and an expression and it constructs a scope. In this scope, the nom$\mathtt{x}\$ will be bound! This is precisely what we need.

In the next posts we'll start translating the paper ideas of the first post into runnable ideas.