Lambda cube
a framework

In mathematical logic and type theory, the λ-cube (also written lambda cube) is a framework introduced by Henk Barendregt to investigate the different dimensions in which the calculus of constructions is a generalization of the simply typed λ-calculus. Each dimension of the cube corresponds to a new kind of dependency between terms and types. Here, "dependency" refers to the capacity of a term or type to bind a term or type. The respective dimensions of the λ-cube correspond to:
x-axis (
→
{\displaystyle \rightarrow }
): types that can depend on terms, corresponding to dependent types.
y-axis (
↑
{\displaystyle \uparrow }
): terms that can depend on types, corresponding to polymorphism.
z-axis (
↗
{\displaystyle \nearrow }
): types that can depend on other types, corresponding to (binding) type operators.
The different ways to combine these three dimensions yield the 8 vertices of the cube, each corresponding to a different kind of typed system. The λ-cube can be generalized into the concept of a pure type system.
Examples of systems
(λ→) Simply typed lambda calculus
The simplest system found in the λ-cube is the simply typed lambda calculus, also called λ→. In this system, the only way to construct an abstraction is by making a term depend on a term, with the typing rule:
Γ
,
x
:
σ
⊢
t
:
τ
Γ
⊢
λ
x
.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Lambda cube” is a framework. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Lambda, cube and framework, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “a framework” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2036661. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Lambda cube”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Lambda cube primary sources, Lambda cube archive and Lambda research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Lambda cube”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Lambda cube” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.