Is there a provision in any programming language such that we can write (a==b || a==c) as a==(b||c)?
In other words, is == distributive over logical OR in any programming language? (can we write (a==b || a==c) as a==(b||c)).
There are similar constructs in several languages. IN in SQL, in in python, etc, most evaluating lists or arrays. Closest one I know is Haskell's or which has the type [Bool] -> Bool.
As Anton Gogolev said, it's hard to find a good type for b || c, but not entirely impossible.
You may have to define the higher order function (|||) :: forall a . a -> a -> ((a -> Bool) -> Bool) implemented as a (|||) b = \f -> (f x) || (f y) (here \ means the lambda expression).
Now you can use this (b ||| c) (== 42).
Alternatively you could do :
(|||) :: forall a b . a -> a -> (a -> b -> Bool) -> b -> Bool
(|||) x y f b = (f x b) || (f y b)
and now you can do ( a ||| b ) (==) 42
Of course none of the above will work in languages lacking higher order functions. Moreover, Equality (==) must be function and not language construct. (You can get similar effect with Promises, however).
Maybe the above lines give hints why this approach is not commonly used in the wild. :) a in [b,c] is much simpler to use.
EDIT: (for fun sake)
You can use wrapper type to achieve the goal (in Haskell):
data F a = (Eq a) => Fn (a -> (a->a->Bool) -> Bool) | N a
(===) :: Eq a => F a -> F a -> Bool
(Fn f) === (N n) = f n (==)
(N n) === (Fn f) = f n (==)
(N a) === (N b) = a == b
(Fn a) === (Fn b) = error "not implemented"
(|||) :: Eq a => F a -> F a -> F a
N a ||| N b = Fn $ \c f -> (a `f` c) || (b `f` c)
Fn a ||| N b = Fn $ \c f -> a c f || ( b `f` c )
N a ||| Fn b = Fn $ \c f -> b c f || ( a `f` c )
Fn a ||| Fn b = Fn $ \c f -> (a c f) || (b c f)
Now our new (===) is distributive over (|||). Some efforts has been made to keep associative and commutative properties. Now we can have all of the following:
N 1 === N 2
N 3 === ( N 3 ||| N 8 ||| N 5 )
( N 3 ||| N 8 ||| N 5 ) === N 0
N "bob" === ( N "pete" ||| N "cecil" ||| N "max")
N a === ( N 9 ||| N b ||| N c)
Everything will work smoothly. We could replace standard operators and type N with basic types and write 3 == (3 || 8 || 5). What you ask for is not impossible.
The construct is generic, you can easily extend it with something like (>=) :: F a -> F a -> Bool and now you can use ( 100 || 3 || a || b ) >= c. (Please notice that no lists or arrays are used.)
Related
I want to find the type of the lambda expression \x y -> x y y. I proceed as follows.
We go in the reverse order of operations and "unpack" the expression. Assume the whole expression has type A. Then let y have type x1 and \x y -> x y have type B. Then A = B -> x1
We already know the type of y, and let \x y -> x be of the type C. Then B = C -> x1.
The type of \x y -> x is obviously x1->x2->x1. This is given to us in the previous exercise and makes sense because this expression takes in two arguments and returns the first.
Putting it all together we have that:
A = B -> x1 = C -> x1 -> x1 = (x1 -> x2 -> x1) -> x1 -> x1
The correct answer is somehow:
(x1 -> x1 -> x2) -> x1 -> x2
What am I doing wrong?
Here I just write stuff's types under it and go from there:
foo = \x y -> x y y
foo x y = x y y
a b : c
a b b : c
a b : b -> c
a : b -> b -> c
foo : a -> b -> c
~ (b -> b -> c) -> b -> c
And another one:
bar = \x y -> x (y x)
bar x y = x (y x)
a b : c
a (b a) : c
---------
b a : d
b : a -> d
a : d -> c
bar : a -> b -> c
~ (d -> c) -> ( a -> d) -> c
~ (d -> c) -> ((d -> c) -> d) -> c
But,
baz x = x x
a a a : b
a : a -> b
baz : a -> b
~ (a -> b) -> b
~ ((a -> b) -> b) -> b
~ (((a -> b) -> b) -> b) -> b
........
is an "infinite" type, i.e. the process of type derivation never stops.
I somewhat recently asked a question and resolved the issue with a some applications of the rewrite tactic. I then decided to look back at one of my other questions on code review asking for a review of my attempt to formalize Hilbert's (based on Euclid's) geometry.
From the first question, I learned there is a distinction between propositional equality and boolean equality and propositional equality. Looking back at the some of the axioms I wrote for the Hilbert plane, I utilized boolean equality extensively. Although I am not 100% sure, in light of the answer I received, I suspect that I don't want to use boolean equality.
For instance, take this axiom:
-- There exists 3 non-colinear points.
three_non_colinear_pts : (a : point ** b : point ** c : point **
(colinear a b c = False,
(a /= b) = True,
(b /= c) = True,
(a /= c) = True))
I tried rewriting it to not involve the = True:
-- There exists 3 non-colinear points.
three_non_colinear_pts : (a : point ** b : point ** c : point **
(colinear a b c = False,
(a /= b),
(b /= c),
(a /= c)))
All in all I took the code from my question on codereview removed the == and removed = True:
interface Plane line point where
-- Abstract notion for saying three points lie on the same line.
colinear : point -> point -> point -> Bool
coplanar : point -> point -> point -> Bool
contains : line -> point -> Bool
-- Intersection between two lines
intersects_at : line -> line -> point -> Bool
-- If two lines l and m contain a point a, they intersect at that point.
intersection_criterion : (l : line) ->
(m : line) ->
(a : point) ->
(contains l a = True) ->
(contains m a = True) ->
(intersects_at l m a = True)
-- If l and m intersect at a point a, then they both contain a.
intersection_result : (l : line) ->
(m : line) ->
(a : point) ->
(intersects_at l m a = True) ->
(contains l a = True, contains m a = True)
-- For any two distinct points there is a line that contains them.
line_contains_two_points : (a :point) ->
(b : point) ->
(a /= b) ->
(l : line ** (contains l a = True, contains l b = True ))
-- If two points are contained by l and m then l = m
two_pts_define_line : (l : line) ->
(m : line) ->
(a : point) ->
(b : point) ->
(a /= b) ->
contains l a = True ->
contains l b = True ->
contains m a = True ->
contains m b = True ->
(l = m)
same_line_same_pts : (l : line) ->
(m : line) ->
(a : point) ->
(b : point) ->
(l /= m) ->
contains l a = True ->
contains l b = True ->
contains m a = True ->
contains m b = True ->
(a = b)
-- There exists 3 non-colinear points.
three_non_colinear_pts : (a : point ** b : point ** c : point **
(colinear a b c = False,
(a /= b),
(b /= c),
(a /= c)))
-- Any line contains at least two points.
contain_two_pts : (l : line) ->
(a : point ** b : point **
(contains l a = True, contains l b = True))
-- If two lines intersect at a point and they are not identical, that is the o-
-- nly point they intersect at.
intersect_at_most_one_point : Plane line point =>
(l : line) -> (m : line) -> (a : point) -> (b : point) ->
(l /= m) ->
(intersects_at l m a = True) ->
(intersects_at l m b = True) ->
(a = b)
intersect_at_most_one_point l m a b l_not_m int_at_a int_at_b =
same_line_same_pts
l
m
a
b
l_not_m
(fst (intersection_result l m a int_at_a))
(fst (intersection_result l m b int_at_b))
(snd (intersection_result l m a int_at_a))
(snd (intersection_result l m b int_at_b))
This gives the error:
|
1 | interface Plane line point where
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When checking type of Main.line_contains_two_points:
Type mismatch between
Bool (Type of _ /= _)
and
Type (Expected type)
/home/dair/scratch/hilbert.idr:68:29:
|
68 | intersect_at_most_one_point : Plane line point =>
| ^
When checking type of Main.intersect_at_most_one_point:
No such variable Plane
So, it seems that /= works only for boolean. I have been unable to find a "propositional" /= like:
data (/=) : a -> b -> Type where
Does a propositional not equals exist? Or am I wrong about wanting to change from boolean to propositional equality?
The propositional equivalent to the boolean a /= b would be a = b -> Void. Void is a type with no constructors. So whenever you have a contra : Void, something has gone wrong. So a = b -> Void is to understand as: if you have an a = b, there is a contradiction. Usually written as Not (a = b), which is just a shorthand (Not a = a -> Void).
You're right to change to propositional equality. You might even change your boolean properties like contains : line -> point -> Bool to Contains : line -> point -> Type. Subsequently contains l p = True to Contains l p, and contains l p = False to Not (Contains l p).
That's a case of boolean blindness, i.e. with prf : contains l p = True, the only thing we know is that contains l p is True (and the compiler would need to take a look at contains to guess why it is True). On the other hand, with prf : Contains l p you have a constructed proof prf why the proposition Contains l p holds.
In Elm, if I have an anonymous function
(\f x -> f x)
I can simplify it to
(<|)
Can the same be done for a two-parameter function where the parameters are arguments to another function?
(\x y -> f x y |> g)
I thought I could simply use
(f |> g)
but the compiler complains about the types.
Specifically, in one of the cases for my update function, I have something like this:
let
msgNames = [Foo, Bar]
values = ["f", "b"] // These values are actually derived
// by a more complicated operation
model_ = List.map2 (<|) msgNames values
|> List.foldl (\msg mod -> update msg mod |> Tuple.first)
model
in
( model_, Cmd.none )
I am trying to simplify the anonymous function argument to List.foldl to something like (update |> Tuple.first), but I get the following error from the compiler:
The right side of (|>) is causing a type mismatch.
159| update |> Tuple.first)
^^^^^^^^^^^
(|>) is expecting the right side to be a:
(Msg -> Model -> ( Model, Cmd Msg )) -> a
But the right side is:
(( Model, Cmd Msg )) -> Model
We can follow a few steps to simplify:
(\x y -> f x y |> g)
... can be written as
(\x y -> g (f x y))
... can be written as
(\x -> g << f x)
One more step and things get a little more confusing:
(((<<) g) << f)
This matches what you get from pointfree.io (which is Haskell where function composition is done using the . operator):
(g .) . f
If you are trying to improve readability, you might just want to make your own infix function:
infixr 9 <<<
(<<<) : (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> (a -> b -> d)
(<<<) g f x y =
g (f x y)
And now you can use it like this:
(g <<< f)
This is my first SML program. I am trying to write a function that returns the first number to the nth number of Hofstadter's Female or Male sequence in list form. What I have so far is:
val m = fn (n) => if n = 0 then 1 :: [] else m f (n - 1);
val f = fn (n) => if n = 0 then 0 :: [] else f m (n - 1);
You can learn about the sequence here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter_sequence#Hofstadter_Female_and_Male_sequences
The error that I am getting is:
[opening sequence.sml]
sequence.sml:1.49 Error: unbound variable or constructor: f
sequence.sml:1.47-1.58 Error: operator is not a function [tycon mismatch]
operator: int list
in expression:
(m <errorvar>) (n - 1)
val it = () : unit
How can I correct this?
I ended up taking this approach:
fun
m (n) = if n = 0 then 0 else n - (f (m (n - 1)))
and
f (n) = if n = 0 then 1 else n - (m (f (n - 1)));
val seq = fn n => List.tabulate((n), f);
It is quite slow. If anybody has a faster version, then I'd love to see it.
Although you have already fixed them, there were two problems with your original approach:
Function application is left-associative in SML so m f (n - 1) was being interpreted as (m f) (n - 1), not the desired m (f (n - 1)). You can fix this by explicitly specifying the bracketing m (f (n - 1)).
To be able to call f from m and m from f, you need to use the keyword fun instead of val on the first declaration (to make the function recursive), and the keyword and instead of fun or val on the second declaration (to make the function mutually recursive with the first function). This would look like
fun f n = ... (* I can call f or m from here! *)
and m n = ... (* I can call f or m from here! *)
To make it faster, you can memoize! The trick is to make f and m take as arguments memoized versions of themselves.
(* Convenience function: Update arr[i] to x, and return x. *)
fun updateAndReturn arr i x = (Array.update (arr, i, SOME x); x)
(*
* Look up result of f i in table; if it's not found, calculate f i and
* store in the table. The token is used so that deeper recursive calls
* to f can also try to store in the table.
*)
fun memo table f token i =
case Array.sub (table, i)
of NONE => updateAndReturn table i (f token i)
| SOME x => x
(*
* Given f, g, and n : int, returns a tuple (f', g') where f' and g' are memoized
* versions of f and g, respectively. f' and g' are defined only on the domain
* [0, n).
*)
fun memoizeMutual (f, g) n =
let
val fTable = Array.array (n, NONE)
val gTable = Array.array (n, NONE)
fun fMemo i = memo fTable f (fMemo, gMemo) i
and gMemo i = memo gTable g (gMemo, fMemo) i
in
(fMemo, gMemo)
end
fun female _ 0 = 1
| female (f, m) n = n - m (f (n - 1))
fun male _ 0 = 0
| male (m, f) n = n - f (m (n - 1))
fun hofstadter upTo =
let
val (male', female') = memoizeMutual (male, female) upTo
in
(List.tabulate (upTo, male'), List.tabulate (upTo, female'))
end
I renamed f and m to female and male. The memoized fMemo and gMemo are threaded through female and male by memoizeMutual. Interestingly, if we call male', then results for both male' and female' are memoized.
To confirm it's indeed faster, try evaluating hofstadter 10000. It's much faster than the forever that your version would take.
As a final note, the only recursive functions are fMemo and gMemo. Every other function I wrote could be written as an anonymous function (val memoizeMutual = fn ..., val female = fn ..., etc.), but I chose not to do so because the syntax for writing recursive functions is much more compact in SML.
To generalize this, you could replace the array version of memoizing with something like a hash table. Then we wouldn't have to specify the size of the memoization up front.
I am new to Idris. I need to create a data describing a bounded number. So I've made such data with such a constructor:
data BoundedDouble : (a, b : Double) -> Type where
MkBoundedDouble : (x : Double) ->
{auto p : a <= x && x <= b = True} ->
BoundedDouble a b
It seems to create a Double between a and b.
And here is a simple example of use:
test : BoundedDouble 0.0 1.0
test = MkBoundedDouble 0.0
It works. But now I want to implement Num interface for BoundedDouble. I tried this:
Num (BoundedDouble a b) where
(MkBoundedDouble x) + (MkBoundedDouble y) =
MkBoundedDouble (ifThenElse (x + y > b)
(x + y - (b - a))
(ifThenElse (x + y < a)
(x + y + (b - a))
(x + y)))
But it doesn't work, I guess why, but I can't explain it.
How should I implement the addition?
I don't know exactly what should I do or read to understand it.
There are two problems here. Double arithmetic is defined with primitive functions. Idris can't even proof that a <= b = True -> b <= c = True -> a <= c = True (which, by the way, does not even hold all the time - so this is not Idris' fault.) There is no proof for a <= b = True other then just checking it, what you tried with the ifThenElse.
When working with such blind run-time proofs (so just … = True), Data.So is quite helpful. ifThenElse (a <= x) … … branches off given a boolean check, but the code in the branches does not know about result of the check. With choose (a <= x) you get the result for the branches, with Left prf and prf : So (a <= x) or Right prf and prf : So (not (a <= x)).
I suppose if the result of adding two bounded doubles would be bigger then the upper bound, the result should be this upper bound. Lets make a first attempt:
import Data.So
data BoundedDouble : (a, b : Double) -> Type where
MkBoundedDouble : (x : Double)
-> {auto high : So (a <= x)}
-> {auto low : So (x <= b)}
-> BoundedDouble a b
Num (BoundedDouble a b) where
(+) (MkBoundedDouble u) (MkBoundedDouble v) =
let x = u + v
in case (choose (a <= x), choose (x <= b)) of
(Left _, Left _) => MkBoundedDouble x
(Right _, _) => ?holeMin
(_, Right _) => ?holeMax
This already typechecks, but has holes in it. We want to set ?holeMin to MkBoundedDouble a and ?holeMax to MkBoundedDouble b. However, MkBoundedDouble right now needs two proofs: high and low. In the case of ?holeMax those would be with x = b So (a <= b) and So (b <= b). Again, Idris does not know that b <= b for every b : Double. So we would need to choose again to get these proofs:
(_, Right _) => case (choose (a <= b), choose (b <= b)) of
(Left _, Left _) => MkBoundedDouble b
_ => ?what
Because Idris cannot see that b <= b, the function would be partial. We could cheat and use for example MkBoundedDouble u in ?what, so the function will typecheck and hope that this will indeed never occur.
There is also the possibility to convince the type checker with force that b <= b is always true:
data BoundedDouble : (a, b : Double) -> Type where
MkBoundedDouble : (x : Double)
-> {auto rightSize : So (a <= b)}
-> {auto high : So (a <= x)}
-> {auto low : So (x <= b)}
-> BoundedDouble a b
DoubleEqIsSym : (x : Double) -> So (x <= x)
DoubleEqIsSym x = believe_me (Oh)
Num (BoundedDouble a b) where
(+) (MkBoundedDouble u) (MkBoundedDouble v) =
let x = u + v
in case (choose (a <= x), choose (x <= b)) of
(Left _, Left _) => MkBoundedDouble x
(Right _, _) => MkBoundedDouble a {high=DoubleEqIsSym a}
(_, Right _) => MkBoundedDouble b {low=DoubleEqIsSym b}
Or we could be even safer and put the proofs for the upper and lower bounds in the data constructor, so we can use them in ?holeMin and ?holeMax. This would be:
import Data.So
data BoundedDouble : (a, b : Double) -> Type where
MkBoundedDouble : (x : Double)
-> {auto rightSize : So (a <= b)}
-> {auto leftId : So (a <= a)}
-> {auto rightId : So (b <= b)}
-> {auto high : So (a <= x)}
-> {auto low : So (x <= b)}
-> BoundedDouble a b
Num (BoundedDouble a b) where
(+) (MkBoundedDouble u) (MkBoundedDouble v) =
let x = u + v
in case (choose (a <= x), choose (x <= b)) of
(Left _, Left _) => MkBoundedDouble x
(Right _, _) => MkBoundedDouble a
(_, Right _) => MkBoundedDouble b
You see that even that the constructor is packed with proofs, they don't complicate the implementation. And they should get erased in the actual run-time code.
However, as an exercise you could try to implement Num for
data BoundedDouble : (a, b : Double) -> Type where
MkBoundedDouble : (x : Double)
-> {auto rightSize : So (a <= b)}
-> {auto high : So (a <= x)}
-> {auto low : So (x <= b)}
-> BoundedDouble a b
Min : {auto rightSize : So (a <= b)} -> BoundedDouble a b
Max : {auto rightSize : So (a <= b)} -> BoundedDouble a b
Sadly, there aren't many resources for Idris yet. Besides the tutorial there is a book in development, that I would recommend. It gives more approachable exercises than working with primitive types. :-)