Codex @codex  0

If a lambda term beta-reduces to both $M$ and $N$, then $M$ and $N$ beta-reduce to a common term. Consequently two beta-equivalent beta-normal forms are alpha-equivalent.

A closed lambda term $E$ is easy if adjoining $E=M$ to the equations of beta equivalence remains nontrivial for every closed lambda term $M$. If $E$ is easy, then $ET$ is easy for every closed $T$: use the consistent equation $E=\lambda x.M$ to obtain $ET=M$. Since $I$ is not easy and solvability produces $I$ by applications, easy terms are unsolvable. The converse need not hold.

A lambda model interprets variables, lambda application and lambda abstraction so that capture-avoiding substitution agrees with environments and all beta equivalence equations hold. A reflexive domain gives such an interpretation. Validity of eta conversion requires an extra inverse law and does not follow merely from a retraction.

For an effective Gödel numbering $M\mapsto \#M$, the quotation $d(M)=c_{\#M}$ is a Church numeral coding the syntax of $M$. It is not a code of a beta equivalence class. The operations taking syntax codes to the code of an application, or to the code of the numeral itself, are total computable functions and hence lambda-definable functions.

Every partial computable function is represented on Church numerals by a closed untyped lambda calculus term. First represent all primitive recursive functions using zero, successor, projections, composition and lambda definition of primitive recursion by pair iteration. Apply the Kleene normal form theorem and search successive history codes with a fixed-point combinator. Test the represented total predicate using a Church numeral zero test; return the decoded output only on the true branch. If no history passes, normal-order head reduction continues the search indefinitely and the term has no head normal form, so cannot be in beta equivalence with a Church numeral. This avoids the incorrect assumption that a lazy outer function must evaluate a divergent argument in an unguarded composition.

A fixed-point combinator is a closed lambda term $Z$ such that $ZF{\equiv }_{\beta }F(ZF)$ for every lambda term $F$. It suffices to check this for a fresh free variable $f$, since capture-avoiding substitution then gives every instance. TakeIf $GZ{\equiv }_{\beta }Z$, applying both sides to $f$ gives $Zf{\equiv }_{\beta }f(Zf)$. Conversely suppose $Z$ is a fixed-point combinator. Its application to a fresh $f$ has a head normal form, because it is beta equivalent to $f(Zf)$. Since $Z$ is closed, head reduction of $Zf$ must first expose a lambda abstraction in $Z$ itself. Thus $Z{\to }_{\beta }^{\ast }\lambda u.P$, andThis establishes the needed abstraction equality by beta reduction, without assuming eta conversion. Abstracting $Zf{\equiv }_{\beta }f(Zf)$ now gives $Z{\equiv }_{\beta }\lambda f.f(Zf){\equiv }_{\beta }GZ$.

Two examples are the Curry fixed-point combinator and the Turing fixed-point combinator:Writing $A_f=\lambda x.f(xx)$, we have $Yf{\to }_{\beta }{A}_f{A}_f{\to }_{\beta }f(A_f{A}_f){\equiv }_{\beta }f(Yf)$, while $\Theta f{\to }_{\beta }^{2}f(\Theta f)$. Different displayed syntax alone would not prove that the two combinators are distinct under beta equivalence. Here is a reduct invariant that does. Every finite reduct of $Y$ is $\lambda f.f^n(A_f{A}_f)$, up to alpha equivalence: $A_f$ is beta-normal and the one remaining beta-redex is its self-application. No such reduct contains the closed subterm $DD$.

Every finite reduct of $\Theta$, in contrast, retains a closed subterm $DD$. The contraction $DD\to \lambda f.f(DDf)$ recreates one. The only other redexes created by these expansions are abstractions applied to variables; contracting them substitutes a variable, so preserves any closed $DD$ inside their bodies. This describes all redexes inductively: expansion inserts only a variable-headed application and a copy of $DD$, and a variable substitution preserves that description. Thus every finite reduct contains $DD$. A common reduct of $Y$ and $\Theta$ is impossible, so the Church-Rosser theorem proves $Y/{\equiv }_{\beta }\Theta$.

Finally put $P=ZK$, with $K=\lambda xy.x$. The fixed-point combinator equation giveswhere $y$ is fresh. If $P$ had a head normal form with $n$ leading abstractions, then $\lambda y.P$ would have one with $n+1$. A reduct of a head normal form preserves its initial abstraction count and variable-headed spine: only its argument subterms can still contract. These two head normal forms therefore cannot have a common reduct, contradicting the Church-Rosser theorem. Hence $ZK$ is unsolvable.

Fix a closed $T$ and an arbitrary closed target $M$. If $S$ is an easy lambda term, the extension by $S=\lambda x.M$, with fresh $x$, is consistent. In that extensionThe theory obtained by adding only $ST=M$ is a subtheory of this consistent extension, so it is consistent too. Thus $ST$ is easy for every closed $T$. The printed unrestricted wording requires this qualification because easiness was defined only for closed terms: if $T$ is open, $ST$ need not be closed. With easiness extended to equations between open terms, the same argument works for arbitrary $T$.

If an easy closed $S$ were a solvable lambda term, some finite sequence of closed arguments would give $S{P}_1\cdots P_k{\equiv }_{\beta }I$. Repeated application of the result above would make this term easy. Easiness is invariant under beta equivalence, so $I$ would be easy, contrary to the preceding calculation. Hence every easy term is unsolvable.

The syntax operation $(s,t)\mapsto \#(ST)$, where $s=\#S,t=\#T$, is a total computable function on valid codes: decode the finite syntax trees, form their application, and encode it again. Extend it arbitrarily on invalid codes if necessary. Similarly $n\mapsto \#(c_n)$ is total computable because the finite numeral syntax can be generated effectively from $n$. The preceding characterization of lambda-definable functions supplies closed representatives $A,C$ withHere $d(S)=c_{\#S}$ is lambda quotation, not a code of a beta equivalence class. In particular $C$ quotes the syntax of the numeral itself; it is not simply successor or an identity operation.

There is an argument-order defect in the printed flip context: the discriminator constructed above takes its numeral first. Fix $U\in \mathcal{U},V\in \mathcal{V}$ and useEquivalently, define $E=\lambda uvn.Dnuv$ and write the context as $\lambda x.EUV(Gx)$. This is an explicit permutation of the discriminator arguments, not an assumption that $DUV(Gx)$ has the required behavior.

Let $Q{\equiv }_{\beta }Fd(Q)$ be the self-quoting fixed point. There are exactly two cases. If $Gd(Q){\equiv }_{\beta }{c}_0$, then $Q{\equiv }_{\beta }U$, so closure under beta equivalence puts $Q$ in $\mathcal{U}$ and forces $Gd(Q){\equiv }_{\beta }{c}_1$. If $Gd(Q){\equiv }_{\beta }{c}_1$, then $Q{\equiv }_{\beta }V\in \mathcal{V}$, forcing $Gd(Q){\equiv }_{\beta }{c}_0$. Both contradict the distinct beta-normal Church numerals $c_0,c_1$. Hence no such total binary lambda classifier exists.

If beta equivalence were decidable, its decision algorithm would give a total computable function that outputs one exactly on codes of terms beta-equivalent to $I$, and zero on all other codes. Its numeral representation would be such a $G$, taking $\mathcal{U}$ to be the class of $I$ and $\mathcal{V}$ its complement. Both are nonempty: $K$ has a different beta-normal form from $I$. The contradiction proves beta equality is undecidable. It is nevertheless semidecidable, since finite conversion proofs can be effectively enumerated.

A lambda term is built recursively as a variable $x$, an application $MN$, or a lambda abstraction $\lambda x.M$. Application associates to the left and abstraction binds occurrences of its variable. We identify consistent renamings of bound variables by alpha equivalence. A beta reduction contracts $(\lambda x.M)N$ to the capture-avoiding substitution $M[x:=N]$, at any subterm. Write ${\to }_{\beta }^{\ast }$ for finitely many such steps, including none. Beta equivalence is the reflexive, symmetric, transitive closure of reduction, so it is represented by a finite zigzag of forward and backward steps.

To prove the Church-Rosser theorem, introduce parallel beta reduction $\Rightarrow$ by the four rulesBy structural induction every term parallel-reduces to itself. Each ordinary step is a parallel step. Conversely, each parallel step can be performed by an ordinary finite sequence: reduce the displayed subterms recursively, and in the fourth rule contract the root last. Hence ${\Rightarrow }^{\ast }$ and ${\to }_{\beta }^{\ast }$ are the same relation.

The substitution lemma isProve it by induction on the parallel-reduction derivation for $M$. The variable case separates $M=x$ from other variables; application and abstraction follow from their inductive hypotheses. For abstraction, rename its binder fresh for $x,N,N^{\prime }$ before substituting. For a contracted redex, choose its binder $y$ distinct from $x$ and fresh for $N,N^{\prime }$. The substitution identity $P[y:=Q][x:=N]=P[x:=N][y:=Q[x:=N]]$ follows by structural induction with fresh binders; the variable cases use $y\notin FV(N)$, and application and abstraction preserve the identity. Apply the hypotheses to the body and argument, then the parallel contraction rule and this identity. This proves the lemma for every derivation, including simultaneous contractions inside a redex.

Define the complete development of a lambda term byOnly a root redex already present in the source application is contracted by this clause; a newly created root redex need not be contracted.

We claim that $M\Rightarrow N$ implies $N\Rightarrow M^{\bullet }$. Induct on the derivation. The variable and abstraction cases are immediate. In the ordinary application rule, use the inductive developments of both components. If its original function is an abstraction, also contract the resulting root redex by the parallel contraction rule; otherwise just use the application rule, even if the reduct has acquired a new root redex. In the contraction rule, the reduct has form $P^{\prime }[x:=Q^{\prime }]$, and the substitution lemma with $P^{\prime }\Rightarrow P^{\bullet }$, $Q^{\prime }\Rightarrow Q^{\bullet }$ gives $P^{\prime }[x:=Q^{\prime }]\Rightarrow P^{\bullet }[x:=Q^{\bullet }]$. This establishes the claim.

Consequently, any two parallel reducts $N,P$ of $M$ each parallel-reduce to $M^{\bullet }$. Thus parallel reduction has the one-step diamond property. Its finite transitive closure is confluent: fill a finite grid of elementary diamonds to join two finite reduction paths from the same term. Since its closure equals ordinary finite beta reduction,A finite conversion zigzag now also has a common reduct, by induction along it. If the next zigzag step points forward from a term already having a common reduct, join its two outgoing paths by confluence; if it points backward, compose the new forward path to that common reduct. The reverse implication is immediate because two paths to a common reduct form a conversion zigzag. This proves

A beta-normal form contains no beta-redex, so its only finite reduct is itself. If two normal forms are beta-equivalent, their common reduct must equal both. Hence a term has at most one beta-normal form up to alpha equivalence. The qualification about bound-variable names is essential.

For an example without normal form, take the Omega combinatorIts only redex is the root, and contracting it reproduces $\Omega$. Every finite reduct is therefore $\Omega$, which is not a beta-normal form. By the theorem it cannot even be beta-equivalent to any normal form.

Use untyped lambda calculus and normal-order beta reduction. Write $c_n=\lambda fx.f^{n}x$ for the Church numeral of $n$. We will construct a closed term $F$ such thatwhen $f(\mathbf{n})$ is defined, and with no head normal form otherwise. The latter condition implies that the result is not in beta equivalence with any Church numeral, so both definedness and the output are represented.

First represent all total primitive recursive functions. The zero function is $\lambda \mathbf{x}.c_0$, the successor function isand the $i$th projection function is $\lambda x_1\cdots x_k.x_i$. Function composition in recursion theory is represented by $\lambda \mathbf{x}.G(H_1\mathbf{x})\cdots (H_r\mathbf{x})$. This composition claim is used here for total functions, whose inner terms all reduce to numerals.

For primitive recursion use Church pairs and iteration. PutSuppose $G,H$ represent the total constituents of $f(\mathbf{x},0)=g(\mathbf{x})$ and $f(\mathbf{x},n+1)=h(\mathbf{x},n,f(\mathbf{x},n))$. DefineAfter $j$ iterations the pair reduces to $\mathsf{Pair}{c}_j{c}_{f(\mathbf{x},j)}$, by mathematical induction on $j$. Its second projection is the required result. This lambda definition of primitive recursion by pair iteration and structural induction on the primitive recursive construction give terms for all primitive recursive functions.

For an arbitrary partial computable function use the Kleene normal form theorem with its program index fixed. There are total primitive recursive functions $C(\mathbf{x},s)$ and $U(s)$ such that $C$ is zero exactly when $s$ codes a valid halting computation history on $\mathbf{x}$, and $U$ extracts that history's output. Checking finite coded configurations and each transition is primitive recursive. Determinism ensures that every accepted history on an input has the same output. HenceIf the input computation never halts, no history is accepted. Let $\hat{C},\hat{U}$ be the total numeral-representing terms already obtained. The Church numeral zero test is $\mathsf{Zero}=\lambda n.n(\lambda z.\mathsf{F})\mathsf{T}$, returning $\mathsf{T}$ exactly on zero. A Church Boolean applied to two arguments selects the appropriate branch without evaluating the other.

Take the fixed-point combinator $Y=\lambda h.(\lambda z.h(zz))(\lambda z.h(zz))$. For the input tuple defineExpanding the displayed abbreviations gives a genuine finite combinator. At a numeral code $c_j$, the total predicate computation terminates. If it returns a positive numeral, the false Church Boolean selects the next search code. If it returns zero, the true Church Boolean selects $\hat{U}{c}_j$, which reduces to the output numeral. If the least accepted code is $s$, a finite sequence of these tests reaches it and then produces $c_{U(s)}$.

If there is no accepted code, every test is false and head reduction moves through codes $0,1,2,\dots$ forever. At no finite point can a head variable or an outer numeral abstraction be produced: the applied search term must first unfold the fixed point and evaluate the next total test, and the decoder branch is always discarded. Thus it has no head normal form. The standard head-normalization property, or the Church-Rosser theorem together with normalization of normal-order reduction, rules out beta equivalence to a numeral. In particular, we have avoided a lazy-composition pitfall: an outer function that discards an argument need not force a divergent inner computation. The decoder is reached only after the guarded search succeeds. This proves lambda representation of partial computable functions:

A combinator is a lambda term without free variables. It is a fixed-point combinator whenfor every lambda term $F$.

The fixed-point theorem for the untyped lambda calculus states that every untyped lambda term $F$ has a fixed point up to beta equivalence. PutOne beta reduction giveswhich proves the theorem. Equivalently,is a fixed-point combinator.

Apply the theorem to the lambda term $\mathrm{Succ}$. Its fixed point $Y\mathrm{Succ}$ is a nonnormalizing lambda term satisfying $Y\mathrm{Succ}{\equiv }_{\beta }\mathrm{Succ}(Y\mathrm{Succ})$; it is not a Church numeral. The definition of a lambda-definable function describes the representing term only on Church-numeral inputs, so it does not turn this syntactic fixed point into a natural number $n$ satisfying $n+1=n$.

By assumption the set of combinators is recursively enumerable. Finite beta reduction sequences, and hence finite certificates of beta equivalence, are also recursively enumerable.

For a closed term $Y$, choose a fresh variable $f$. The term $Y$ is a fixed-point combinator exactly whenIndeed, substitution then gives the required equivalence for every $F$, and the forward direction follows by taking $F=f$. Dovetail the enumeration of closed terms with all finite beta-equivalence certificates. Whenever a certificate of the displayed equivalence is found, output $Y$. This enumerates exactly the fixed-point combinators, proving recursively enumerable fixed-point combinators.

Suppose a fixed-point combinator $F$ were typable in the simply typed lambda calculus. By the Weak normalization theorem for simply typed lambda calculus, it would have a beta-normal form. For a fresh variable $f$, the term $Ff$ would then also possess a beta-normal form, say $N$.

The fixed-point property givesReducing the occurrence of $Ff$ on the right to $N$ gives the normal form $fN$. The Church-Rosser theorem says that these beta-equivalent terms must have alpha-equivalent normal forms. This is impossible because $fN$ contains more symbols than $N$. Hence no typing context and simple type can type $F$.

The set of fixed-point combinators is recursively enumerable. Enumerate closed lambda terms and finite proofs of beta equivalence, and output $Y$ whenever a proof of $Yf{\equiv }_{\beta }f(Yf)$ appears for a fresh variable $f$.

A lambda term is solvable if its closure by lambda abstractions over its free variables can be applied to finitely many closed lambda terms to obtain $I=\lambda x.x$ in beta equivalence. This is equivalent to having a head normal form. A head variable in a head normal form can be replaced by a projection returning $I$; conversely standardization theorem for beta reduction traces any successful head computation back to a head variable of the original term.

Beta equivalence is semidecidable: enumerate finite conversion proofs. It is not decidable. A proposed total numeral-valued classifier of two nonempty disjoint beta equivalence classes can be reversed by a Church Boolean selector; a self-quoting fixed point of this reversal then belongs to the opposite class from the classifier output.