Abstract

Abstract. Inductive definitions and rule inductions are two fundamental reasoning tools in logic and computer science. When inductive definitions involve binders, then Barendregt's variable convention is nearly always employed (explicitly or implicitly) in order to obtain simple proofs. Using this convention, one does not consider truly arbitrary bound names, as required by the rule induction principle, but rather bound names about which various freshness assumptions are made. Unfortunately, neither Barendregt nor others give a formal justification for the variable convention, which makes it hard to formalise such proofs. In this paper we identify conditions an inductive definition has to satisfy so that a form of the variable convention can be built into the rule induction principle. In practice this means we come quite close to the informal reasoning of "pencil-and-paper " proofs, while remaining completely formal. Our conditions also reveal circumstances in which Barendregt's variable convention is not applicable, and can even lead to faulty reasoning. 1 Introduction In informal proofs about languages that feature bound variables, one often assumes (explicitly or implicitly) a rather convenient convention about those bound variables. Barendregt's statement of the convention is: Variable Convention: If M1; : : : ; Mn occur in a certain mathematical context (e.g. definition, proof), then in these terms all bound variables are chosen to be different from the free variables. [2, Page 26]

Citations