I would like to know, how can I define a pair and a sequence of pair in alloy?
For example, in the Z notation, we can have a variable definition like c as a sequence of pairs, ie, "c: seq (A \cross B)". Is there any equivalent to this definition in the alloy language?
Alloy is pretty expressive, and often you can translate directly from Z into Alloy. In this case, for example, you could declare a signature representing the pairs
sig Pair {first, second: X}
and then define a field as a sequence of pairs
s: seq Pair
But usually there's a better way of doing it. For example, maybe having two sequences is better; maybe the sequences can be represented as orderings; or maybe you don't need sequences at all and sets will do. Generally this is what people find when modeling with Alloy: that making things simpler for analysis makes things easier to understand and express too. Good luck!
Ive been revisiting genetic algorithms with encoding, optimizing and decoding. My first attempt was the travelling salesman with ordered cross over which worked great. I found an article that tried to optimize a more complex genome while optimizing a 2d packing problem.
The author encodes the problem using reverse polish notation that made sense. It uses a combination of parts and either V Or H as opertors.
Ie 34H5V
With decoding the stack having to be resolved to one stack element that is my final layout. That being said, the number of operater up until a certain point must be 1 less than the number of parts up until the same point. The author then states that he used a mixed cross over by using an ordered cross over on the parts and binary crossover for the operators.
I mulled this over but i cannot understand how he seperates the parts and operators before crossing over and then recombines them before evaluating performance and they offer little details. If a binary cross over occured replacing parts with an "X" to keep the relative positions so they can be recombined after crossover but the relationship between operator and parts doesnt hold true.
Does anyone perhaps have a resource that has dealt with a similar scenario or perhaps has used this successfully.
This looked way more difficult than it actually was. When the original population is generated, you need to adhere to the limitations set out by postfix notation. When a crossover occurs you simply build a mask of the parent
Ie xxxxooxoxx
Where x is an object and o is an operaror. Once you have the mask holding the positions you can create a sting only of operators and one only of objects. The operators can be done with a binary cross over and the objects as partial map crossover. Once done you fill the mask with the value in the order they appear in each group. Since the mask was valid, the progeny is valid too.
The only issue ia getting all the possible arrangements because without it, it will all be limited to the masks. He solves this by doing a swap mutation dictated by the mutation rates.
Select an item at random.
If the item is an operator then
A. Swithc the operator to another kind
B. Select another. If its an object then make sure the requirementa are met and if so then switch.
Every formulation of the strongest postcondition predicate transformer I have seen presents the assignment rule as follows:
sp(X:=E, P) = ∃v. (X=E[v/X] ∧ P[v/X])
I am wondering, why is the existential (and thus the existentially quantified variable "v") necessary in the above rule? It seems to me the strongest postconditions predicate transformer is almost identical to symbolic evaluation, in that you maintain a state (a mapping from variables to values) and a path condition (a predicate that must be true at a particular point in the program). Yet, symbolic evaluation does not rely on an existential quantifier.
So, I think I must be missing something here. Any help is appreciated!
I will give some intuitive description, since you have some knowledge in symbolic evaluation
If you have an arbitrary map to variables, you can not say anything about future state changes in the program before looking at them during the analysis.
Symbolical evaluation remembers each chosen path[as state space seperation], so it does not need to be contained in the evaluation formula to solve.
Here however you argue about every possible path and thus need an arbitrary formula to describe the behavior.
Assuming you would keep the variable in the formula, then you would argue about only 1 path of the possible runs. If you know that your variable does not induce other paths, then you can simplify this behavior.
Having however weakest liberal precondition, you know from which possible path you start and wrap all paths together to proof properties about your system.
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.
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.