The problem of proving that two programs, in any reasonable programming language, are equivalent is well-known to be undecidable. In a formal programming system, in which the rules for equivalence are finitely presented, the problem of provable equivalence is semi-decidable. Despite this improved situation there is a significant lack of generally accepted automated techniques for systematically searching for a proof (or disproof) of program equivalence. Techniques for searching for proofs of equivalence often stumble on the formulation of induction and, of course, coinduction (when it is present) which are often formulated in such a manner as to require inspired guesses.

There are, however, well-known program transformation techniques which do address these issues. Of particular interest to this paper are the deforestation techniques introduced by Phil Wadler and the fold/unfold program transformation techniques introduced by Burstall and Darlington. These techniques are shadows of an underlying cut-elimination procedure and, as such, should be more generally recognized as proof techniques.

In this paper we show that these techniques apply to languages which have both inductive and coinductive datatypes. The relationship between these program transformation techniques and cut-elimination requires a transformation from initial and final “algebra” proof rules into “circular” proof rules as introduced by Santocanale (and used implicitly in the model checking community). This transformation is only possible in certain proof systems. Here we show that it can be applied to cartesian closed categories with datatypes: closedness is an essential requirement. The cut-elimination theorems and attendant program transformation techniques presented here rely heavily on this alternate presentation of induction and coinduction.