So for any given language, if we implement the same program(i.e same output for any given input) twice, using different syntax (i.e. using i++ instead of i+1) will the two programs have the same semantics? Why?
Does the same apply in case where we use different constructs (i.e. Arrays vs Arraylists)?
Thanks
Yes. Depending on the programming language, there can be (combinations of) different syntax constructs with identical semantics.
For example, we can define a programming language with 3 constructs: A and B, both of which are semantically equivalent, and composition (e.g XY for any X and Y where any of these can either be A, B or any composition thereof). Hence program A is equivalent to program B. Also AA is equal to AB, BA and BB etc.
Further, if we extend the language with C which is semantically equivalent to AA, then, for example, BC is equivalent to AAA etc.
So for any given language, if we implement the same program(i.e same output for any given input) twice, using different syntax (i.e. using i++ instead of i+1) will the two programs have the same semantics?
That question is a tautology. The answer is yes. Obviously.
If two different programs produce the same results for all possible input sets, then they do have the same semantics. By definition1.
Why?
Because that is what "same semantics" means!
Does the same apply in case where we use different constructs (i.e. Arrays vs Arraylists)?
Yes.
(One data structure might use more memory, and that might cause an OOME for one version and not the other ... for certain input datasets. But then I would argue that the programs DO NOT produce the same results for all possible inputs.)
Note that this applies to all practical programming languages. Any programming language where there are programs that can only be written one way ... is probably too restrictive to be usable.
1 - OK, so anyone who has studied programming semantics would probably have a fit when they read that. But I am trying to provide an intuitive explanation rather than one that has a decent mathematical foundation. Horses for courses ... as they say.
I want to have real-valued exponents (not just integers) for the terminal variables.
For example, lets say I want to evolve a function y = x^3.5 + x^2.2 + 6. How should I proceed? I haven't seen any GP implementations which can do this.
I tried using the power function, but sometimes the initial solutions have so many exponents that the evaluated value exceeds 'double' bounds!
Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
DEAP (in Python) implements it. In fact there is an example for that. By adding the math.pow from Python in the primitive set you can acheive what you want.
pset.addPrimitive(math.pow, 2)
But using the pow operator you risk getting something like x^(x^(x^(x))), which is probably not desired. You shall add a restriction (by a mean that I not sure) on where in your tree the pow is allowed (just before a leaf or something like that).
OpenBeagle (in C++) also allows it but you will need to develop your own primitive using the pow from <math.h>, you can use as an example the Sin or Cos primitive.
If only some of the initial population are suffering from the overflow problem then just penalise them with a poor fitness score and they will probably be removed from the population within a few generations.
But, if the problem is that virtually all individuals suffer from this problem, then you will have to add some constraints. The simplest thing to do would be to constrain the exponent child of the power function to be a real literal - which would mean powers would not be allowed to be nested. It depends on whether this is sufficient for your needs though. There are a few ways to add constraints like these (or more complex ones) - try looking in to Constrained Syntactic Structures and grammar guided GP.
A few other simple thoughts: can you use a data-type with a larger range? Also, you could reduce the maximum depth parameter, so that there will be less room for nested exponents. Of course that's only possible to an extent, and it depends on the complexity of the function.
Integers have a different binary representation than reals, so you have to use a slightly different bitstring representation and recombination/mutation operator.
For an excellent demonstration, see slide 24 of www.cs.vu.nl/~gusz/ecbook/slides/Genetic_Algorithms.ppt or check out the Eiben/Smith book "Introduction to Evolutionary Computing Genetic Algorithms." This describes how to map a bit string to a real number. You can then create a representation where x only lies within an interval [y,z]. In this case, choose y and z to be the of less magnitude than the capacity of the data type you are using (e.g. 10^308 for a double) so you don't run into the overflow issue you describe.
You have to consider that with real-valued exponents and a negative base you will not obtain a real, but a complex number. For example, the Math.Pow implementation in .NET says that you get NaN if you attempt to calculate the power of a negative base to a non-integer exponent. You have to make sure all your x values are positive. I think that's the problem that you're seeing when you "exceed double bounds".
Btw, you can try the HeuristicLab GP implementation. It is very flexible with a configurable grammar.
Not sure what exactly to google for this question, so I'll post it directly to SO:
Variables in Haskell are immutable
Pure functions should result in same values for same arguments
From these two points it's possible to deduce that if you call somePureFunc somevar1 somevar2 in your code twice, it only makes sense to compute the value during the first call. The resulting value can be stored in some sort of a giant hash table (or something like that) and looked up during subsequent calls to the function. I have two questions:
Does GHC actually do this kind of optimization?
If it does, what is the behaviour in the case when it's actually cheaper to repeat the computation than to look up the results?
Thanks.
GHC doesn't do automatic memoization. See the GHC FAQ on Common Subexpression Elimination (not exactly the same thing, but my guess is that the reasoning is the same) and the answer to this question.
If you want to do memoization yourself, then have a look at Data.MemoCombinators.
Another way of looking at memoization is to use laziness to take advantage of memoization. For example, you can define a list in terms of itself. The definition below is an infinite list of all the Fibonacci numbers (taken from the Haskell Wiki)
fibs = 0 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)
Because the list is realized lazily it's similar to having precomputed (memoized) previous values. e.g. fibs !! 10 will create the first ten elements such that fibs 11 is much faster.
Saving every function call result (cf. hash consing) is valid but can be a giant space leak and in general also slows your program down a lot. It often costs more to check if you have something in the table than to actually compute it.
Consider compounds of two nouns, which in natural English would most often appear in the form "noun of noun", e.g. "direction of light", "output of a filter". When programming, we usually write "LightDirection" and "FilterOutput".
Now, I have a problem with plural nouns. There are two cases:
1) singular of plural
e.g. "union of (two) sets", "intersection of (two) segments"
Which is correct, SetUnion and SegmentIntersection or SetsUnion and SegmentsIntersection?
2) plural of plural
There are two subcases:
(a) Many elements, each having many related elements, e.g. "outputs of filters"
(b) Many elements, each having single related element, e.g. "directions of vectors"
Shall I use FilterOutputs and VectorDirections or FiltersOutputs and VectorsDirections?
I suspect correct is the first version (FilterOutupts, VectorDirections), but I think it may lead to ambiguities, e.g.
FilterOutputs - many outputs of a single filter or many outputs of many filters?
LineSegmentProjections - projections of many segments or many projections of a single segment?
What are the general rules, I should follow?
There's a grammatical misunderstanding lying behind this question. When we turn a phrase of form:
1. X of Y
into
2. Y X
the Y changes grammatical role from a noun in the possessive (1) to an adjective in the attributive (2). So while one may pluralise both X and Y in (1), one may only pluralise X in (2), because Y in (2) is an adjective, and adjectives do not have grammatical number.
Hence, e.g., SetsUnion is not in accordance with English. You're free to use it if it suits you, but you are courting unreadability, and I advise against it.
Postscript
In particular, consider two other possessive constructions, first the old-fashioned construction using the possessive pronoun "its", singular:
3a. Y, its X
the equivalent plural:
4a. Ys, their X
and their contractions, with 4b much less common than 3b:
3b. Y's X
4b. Ys' X
Here, SetsUnion suggests it is a rendering of the singular possessive type (3) Set's Union (=Set, its Union), where you intended to communicate the plural possessive (4) Sets, their Union (contracted to the less common Sets' Union).
So it's actively misleading.
Unless you're getting hamstrung by a convention driven system (ruby on rails, cakePHP etc), why not use OutputsOfFilters, UnionOfSets etc? They may not be conventional but they may be clearer.
For example its pretty clear that ProjectionOfLineSegments and ProjectionsOfLineSegment are different things or even ProjectionsOfLineSegments....
Using plural forms of nouns can make them more difficult to read.
When you have a number of things, they are usually stored in a datastructure - an array, a list, a map, set, etc.. generically called a collection or abstract data type. The interface to a collection of items is typically part of the programming environment (e.g. Collections in java and .net, STL in C++) and is well understood by developers to involve quantities of items.
You can avoid pluralizing your nouns, and make the fact that you are dealing with multiple quantities explicit, and indicate how they are accessed by incorporating the name of the collection. For example,
VectorDirectionList - the vectors and their directions are listed, e.g. some kind of Pair type. Works particularly well if you have a VectorDirection, combining a Vector and a Direction.
VectorDirectionMap - if the vector directions are mapped from vector.
Because it's a collection type, dealing with multiple objects is understood as it is endemic to a collection type. It then puts it in the same class as SetUnion - a union always involves at least 2 sets, and a VectorDirectionList makes it clear there can be more than one VectorDirection.
I agree about avoiding homonyms where the word has more than one word class, e.g. Filter, (and actually, Set, although to my mind Set would not really be used in a class name as a verb, so I interpret it as a noun.) I originally wrote this using FilterOutput as an example, but it didn't read well. Using a compound for Filter may help disambiguate - e.g. ImageFilterOutputs (or applying my own adivce, this would be ImageFilterOutputList.)
Avoiding plural forms with class names seems natural when you consider that an instance of a class is itself always one item - "an instance". If we use a plural name, then we get a mismatch - an instance trying to imply that it is multiple things - it itself is just one thing, even if it references multiple other things. The collection naming above builds on this - you have an instance which is a list, a map etc so there is no mismatch.
I'm assuming you are talking about programming language constructs, although the same thinking applies to tables/views. These are understood to involve quantities of items and table names are consequently often singlular (Customer, Order, Item) even though they store multiple rows. Many-to-Many Mapping tables are usually compounds of the entities being related, e.g. relating orders to items - OrderItem. In my experience, using plurals for table names makes the SQL difficult to read.
To sum up, I would avoid plural froms as they make reading harder. There are sure to be cases where they are unavoidable - where using the plural form is more readable than creating a huge name of nested entities and collections, but these are the exception than the rule.
What are the general rules, I should follow?
Make it Clear -- for both visual and aural thinkers.
Make it Specific but Accurate.
Make it pass the "crowded room" or "emergency phone call" test.
To illustrate with the SetsUnion example:
"SetsUnion" is right out; It's easily confused for a typo and speaking it (even in your head) will confuse it for "Set's Union" (Or worse).
The plural is also implied, so the 2nd 's' is redundant.
SetUnion is better but still ambiguous.
UnionOfSets is clearer and should be the bare minimum standard.
But all of these, so far, are uselessly vague (unless you are working with pure mathematical theory).
The term really should be specific. For example, "Red cars", "Programmers who spent too much time on esoterica", etc.
These are all unions of sets, but they tell you something useful. ;-)
.
Finally, Phil Factor had the right of it. To paraphrase:
Can you shout a (term) out across a crowded room and have it keyed in, and successfully (used), by a listener at the other side?
Try yelling, "SetsUnion," or even, "UnionOfSets," across a packed Irish bar. ;-)
1) i would use SetUnion and SegmentIntersection because i think in this case the plurality is implied anyway and it just looks nicer that way.
2) again, i would use FilterOutputs and VectorDirections, for the same reason. you could always use MultipleFilterOutputs if you want to be more specific.
but ultimately it's entirely down to your personal preference.
I think that while general naming conventions and consistency are important, but in a very very tight/tricky algorithm, clarity should trump convention. If it helps, use veryLongAndDescriptiveIdentifiers.
What's wrong with Union()?
Moreover, "union of sets" turns into "sets' union" (the two sets' union is ...); I'm sure I'm not the only person who's okay with CamelCase but not CamelsCaseMinusApostrophes. If it needs an apostrophe to make sense, don't use it. Set.Union() reads exactly like "union of set(s)".
Mathematations will also say "the (set) union of A and B", or rarely "A and B's (set) union". "The sets' union of A and B" makes no sense!
Most people will also see Vector[] vectors and Directions[] vectorDirections and assume that vectors[i] corresponds to vectorDirections[i]. If things really get ambiguous, I use something like vector_by_index and vectorDirection_by_index. Then you can have Map<Filter,Output> output_by_filter or Map<Filter,Output[]> outputs_by_filter, which makes it very obvious what the key is (this is very important in Objective-C where it's completely non-obvious what type the keys or values are).
If you really want, you can add an s and get vectors_by_index, but then consistency gives you the silly outputss_by_filter.
The right thing is, of course, something like struct FilterState { Filter filter; Output[] outputs; }; FilterState[] filterStates;.
I'd suggest singular for the first word: SetUnion, VectorDirections, etc.
Do a quick class search in your IDE, for: Strings*, Sets*, Vectors*, Collections*
Anyway, whatever you choose, be consistent throughout the whole application.
I'm designing a declarative language for defining signal networks. I want to use variable bindings to represent groups of nodes in the network. It occurred to me that there are two types of "assignment" I wish to do for these variables.
On the one hand, a variable should represent the output of a specific group of signal operators. This output can then be attached to another input. This is important for directing different outputs to different places, for example:
a, b, c = (SignalA with three outputs)
(SignalB a)
(SignalC c)
(SignalD a)
In this case there would be a SignalA with three outputs, where the first and third outputs get linked to SignalB and SignalC respectively, and SignalD also gets linked to the first output of SignalA. There is only one instance of SignalA.
On the other hand, a variable should represent a common pattern of signal operations, so that it's easy to reproduce a common configuration:
a = (SignalA (SignalB))
(SignalC a)
(SignalD a)
In this case, I'd like a to represent the composition of SignalA and SignalB, and this is reproduced as the input for SignalC and SignalD. There are two instances of SignalA here.
So my question is, in functional/declarative programming, are there common terms for these two assignment semantics? And in my language, which one should get '=', and what would be a common operator for the other? (perhaps := ?)
I realized of course that if each Signal really represented a pure function, then both of these would be the same, but in my case it's possible for side effects to occur when the signal is processed, so I need to differentiate these two cases.
It's past my bed time, so I may not be reading carefully enough. But is the second case similar to an anonymous function? Your syntax looks lisp-like already, so I wonder if lisp's shortcut syntax for the lambda function might be what you want.
a = '(SignalA (SignalB))
If your usage is not actually similar in meaning to lambda, then it will probably cause more confusion.
BTW, in the first case, you could follow Perl's idea for the left side of a list assignment:
(a, b, c) = (SignalA with three outputs)
No idea if this will be helpful; I'm not that experienced outside of imperative languages like perl and C.