In the lambda calculus, a term is in beta normal form if no beta reduction is possible.[1] A term is in beta-eta normal form if neither a beta reduction nor an eta reduction is possible. A term is in head normal form if there is no beta-redex in head position. The normal form of a term, if one exists, is unique (as a corollary of the Church–Rosser theorem).[2] However, a term may have more than one head normal form.
In the lambda calculus, a beta redex is a term of the form:[3] [4]
(λx.A)M
A redex
r
t
t
λx1\ldotsλxn.\underbrace{(λx.A)M1}theredexrM2\ldotsMm
n\geq0
m\geq1
A beta reduction is an application of the following rewrite rule to a beta redex contained in a term:
(λx.A)M\longrightarrowA[x:=M]
where
A[x:=M]
M
x
A
A head beta reduction is a beta reduction applied in head position, that is, of the following form:
λx1\ldotsλxn.(λx.A)M1M2\ldotsMm\longrightarrow λx1\ldotsλxn.A[x:=M1]M2\ldotsMm
n\geq0
m\geq1
Any other reduction is an internal beta reduction.
A normal form is a term that does not contain any beta redex,[5] i.e. that cannot be further reduced. A head normal form is a term that does not contain a beta redex in head position, i.e. that cannot be further reduced by a head reduction. When considering the simple lambda calculus (viz. without the addition of constant or function symbols, meant to be reduced by additional delta rule), head normal forms are the terms of the following shape:
λx1\ldotsλxn.xM1M2\ldotsMm
x
n\geq0
m\geq0
A head normal form is not always a normal form, because the applied arguments
Mj
Mj
There is also the notion of weak head normal form: a term in weak head normal form is either a term in head normal form or a lambda abstraction.[6] This means a redex may appear inside a lambda body.
In general, a given term can contain several redexes, hence several different beta reductions could be applied. We may specify a strategy to choose which redex to reduce.
Mj
Normal-order reduction is complete, in the sense that if a term has a head normal form, then normal‐order reduction will eventually reach it. By the syntactic description of normal forms above, this entails the same statement for a “fully” normal form (this is the standardization theorem). By contrast, applicative order reduction may not terminate, even when the term has a normal form. For example, using applicative order reduction, the following sequence of reductions is possible:
\begin{align} &(λx.z)((λw.www)(λw.www))\\ → &(λx.z)((λw.www)(λw.www)(λw.www))\\ → &(λx.z)((λw.www)(λw.www)(λw.www)(λw.www))\\ → &(λx.z)((λw.www)(λw.www)(λw.www)(λw.www)(λw.www))\\ &\ldots \end{align}
But using normal-order reduction, the same starting point reduces quickly to normal form:
(λx.z)((λw.www)(λw.www))
→ z
Sinot's director strings is one method by which the computational complexity of beta reduction can be optimized.