From nominal sets binding to functions and lambda-abstraction: connecting the logic of permutation models with the logic of functions

TL;DR

This paper explores the connection between Permissive-Nominal Logic (PNL) and Higher-Order Logic (HOL), providing a translation from PNL to HOL and analyzing how models of binding relate across these frameworks.

Contribution

It introduces a translation from a restricted subsystem of PNL into HOL, linking nominal set semantics with function-based models in set theory.

Findings

A translation from PNL to HOL is established.

Models of PNL can be mapped to certain HOL models.

Nominal equivariance properties are not preserved in translation.

Abstract

Permissive-Nominal Logic (PNL) extends first-order predicate logic with term-formers that can bind names in their arguments. It takes a semantics in (permissive-)nominal sets. In PNL, the forall-quantifier or lambda-binder are just term-formers satisfying axioms, and their denotation is functions on nominal atoms-abstraction. Then we have higher-order logic (HOL) and its models in ordinary (i.e. Zermelo-Fraenkel) sets; the denotation of forall or lambda is functions on full or partial function spaces. This raises the following question: how are these two models of binding connected? What translation is possible between PNL and HOL, and between nominal sets and functions? We exhibit a translation of PNL into HOL, and from models of PNL to certain models of HOL. It is natural, but also partial: we translate a restricted subsystem of full PNL to HOL. The extra part which does not translate is the symmetry properties of nominal sets with respect to permutations. To use a little nominal jargon: we can translate names and binding, but not their nominal equivariance properties. This seems reasonable since HOL---and ordinary sets---are not equivariant. Thus viewed through this translation, PNL and HOL and their models do different things, but they enjoy non-trivial and rich subsystems which are isomorphic.