X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?a=blobdiff_plain;f=week1.mdwn;h=b581db1b5429c6ae3559b6fa2c2cc2e86af6598b;hb=9f92c70ab51c8e2bcc57f5eac7c31841984142b9;hp=c68da8a0e636b1ceba1cdfbf955905168ee076dc;hpb=87483b8ff52adf85fd8d80060427f9e67f698b8a;p=lambda.git diff --git a/week1.mdwn b/week1.mdwn index c68da8a0..b581db1b 100644 --- a/week1.mdwn +++ b/week1.mdwn @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ -Here's what we did in seminar on Monday 9/13, (Sometimes these notes will expand on things mentioned only briefly in class, or discuss useful tangents that didn't even make it into class.) +Here's what we did in seminar on Monday 9/13, + +Sometimes these notes will expand on things mentioned only briefly in class, or discuss useful tangents that didn't even make it into class. These notes expand on *a lot*, and some of this material will be reviewed next week. Applications ============ @@ -12,7 +14,7 @@ From linguistics * (Chris: fill in other applications...) -* expressives -- at the end of the seminar we gave a demonstration of modeling [[damn]] using continuations...see the linked summary for more explanation and elaboration +* expressives -- at the end of the seminar we gave a demonstration of modeling [[damn]] using continuations...see the [summary](/damn) for more explanation and elaboration From philosophy --------------- @@ -35,7 +37,7 @@ Declarative/functional vs Imperatival/dynamic models of computation Many of you, like us, will have grown up thinking the paradigm of computation is a sequence of changes. Let go of that. It will take some care to separate the operative notion of "sequencing" here from other notions close to it, but once that's done, you'll see that languages that have no significant notions of sequencing or changes are Turing complete: they can perform any computation we know how to describe. In itself, that only puts them on equal footing with more mainstream, imperatival programming languages like C and Java and Python, which are also Turing complete. But further, the languages we want you to become familiar with can reasonably be understood to be more fundamental. They embody the elemental building blocks that computer scientists use when reasoning about and designing other languages. -Jim offered the metaphor: think of imperatival languages, which include "mutation" and "side-effects" (we'll flesh out these keywords as we proceeed), as the pate of computation. We want to teach you about the meat and potatoes, where as it turns out there is no sequencing and no changes. There's just the evaluation or simplification of complex expressions. +Jim offered the metaphor: think of imperatival languages, which include "mutation" and "side-effects" (we'll flesh out these keywords as we proceeed), as the pâté of computation. We want to teach you about the meat and potatoes, where as it turns out there is no sequencing and no changes. There's just the evaluation or simplification of complex expressions. Now, when you ask the Scheme interpreter to simplify an expression for you, that's a kind of dynamic interaction between you and the interpreter. You may wonder then why these languages should not also be understood imperatively. The difference is that in a purely declarative or functional language, there are no dynamic effects in the language itself. It's just a static semantic fact about the language that one expression reduces to another. You may have verified that fact through your dynamic interactions with the Scheme interpreter, but that's different from saying that there are dynamic effects in the language itself. @@ -47,7 +49,7 @@ For example, you'll encounter the claim that declarative languages are distingui The notion of **function** that we'll be working with will be one that, by default, sometimes counts as non-identical functions that map all their inputs to the very same outputs. For example, two functions from jumbled decks of cards to sorted decks of cards may use different algorithms and hence be different functions. -It's possible to enhance the lambda calculus so that functions do get identified when they map all the same inputs to the same outputs. This is called making the calculus **extensional**. Church called languages which didn't do this "intensional." If you try to understand this in terms of functions from worlds to extensions (an idea also associated with Church), you will hurt yourself. So too if you try to understand it in terms of mental stereotypes, another notion sometimes designated by "intension." +It's possible to enhance the lambda calculus so that functions do get identified when they map all the same inputs to the same outputs. This is called making the calculus **extensional**. Church called languages which didn't do this **intensional**. If you try to understand that kind of "intensionality" in terms of functions from worlds to extensions (an idea also associated with Church), you may hurt yourself. So too if you try to understand it in terms of mental stereotypes, another notion sometimes designated by "intension." It's often said that dynamic systems are distinguished because they are the ones in which **order matters**. However, there are many ways in which order can matter. If we have a trivalent boolean system, for example---easily had in a purely functional calculus---we might choose to give a truth-table like this for "and": @@ -99,10 +101,418 @@ For the most part, these uses are only loosely connected to each other. We'll te Map === +
Scheme (functional part) | +OCaml (functional part) | +C, Java, Pasval +Scheme (imperative part) +OCaml (imperative part) |
+
lambda calculus +combinatorial logic |
+||
--------------------------------------------------- Turing complete --------------------------------------------------- | +||
+ | more advanced type systems, such as polymorphic types + | + |
+ | simply-typed lambda calculus (what linguists mostly use) + | + |
+ ∀x. (F x or ∀x (not (F x)))
+
+
+
+Some more comparisons between Scheme and OCaml
+----------------------------------------------
+
+11. Simple predefined values
+
+ Numbers in Scheme: `2`, `3`
+ In OCaml: `2`, `3`
+
+ Booleans in Scheme: `#t`, `#f`
+ In OCaml: `true`, `false`
+
+ The eighth letter in the Latin alphabet, in Scheme: `#\h`
+ In OCaml: `'h'`
+
+12. Compound values
+
+ These are values which are built up out of (zero or more) simple values.
+
+ Ordered pairs in Scheme: `'(2 . 3)`
+ In OCaml: `(2, 3)`
+
+ Lists in Scheme: `'(2 3)`
+ In OCaml: `[2; 3]`
+ We'll be explaining the difference between pairs and lists next week.
+
+ The empty list, in Scheme: `'()`
+ In OCaml: `[]`
+
+ The string consisting just of the eighth letter of the Latin alphabet, in Scheme: `"h"`
+ In OCaml: `"h"`
+
+ A longer string, in Scheme: `"horse"`
+ In OCaml: `"horse"`
+
+ A shorter string, in Scheme: `""`
+ In OCaml: `""`
+
+13. Function application
+
+ Binary functions in OCaml: `foo 2 3`
+
+ Or: `( + ) 2 3`
+
+ These are the same as: `((foo 2) 3)`. In other words, functions in OCaml are "curried". `foo 2` returns a `2`-fooer, which waits for an argument like `3` and then foos `2` to it. `( + ) 2` returns a `2`-adder, which waits for an argument like `3` and then adds `2` to it.
+
+ In Scheme, on the other hand, there's a difference between `((foo 2) 3)` and `(foo 2 3)`. Scheme distinguishes between unary functions that return unary functions and binary functions. For our seminar purposes, it will be easiest if you confine yourself to unary functions in Scheme as much as possible.
+
+ Additionally, as said above, Scheme is very sensitive to parentheses and whenever you want a function applied to any number of arguments, you need to wrap the function and its arguments in a parentheses.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Computation = sequencing changes?
+
+ Different notions of sequencing
+
+ Concatanation / syntactic complexity is not sequencing
+
+ Shadowing is not mutating
+
+ Define isn't mutating
+
+
+
+
+(let [(three 3) (two 2)] (+ 3 2))
@@ -281,14 +691,14 @@ Lambda terms represent functions
All (recursively computable) functions can be represented by lambda
terms (the untyped lambda calculus is Turing complete). For some lambda terms, it is easy to see what function they represent:
-(\x x) represents the identity function: given any argument M, this function
-simply returns M: ((\x x) M) ~~> M.
+> `(\x x)` represents the identity function: given any argument `M`, this function
+simply returns `M`: `((\x x) M) ~~> M`.
-(\x (x x)) duplicates its argument:
-((\x (x x)) M) ~~> (M M)
+> `(\x (x x))` duplicates its argument:
+`((\x (x x)) M) ~~> (M M)`
-(\x (\y x)) throws away its second argument:
-(((\x (\y x)) M) N) ~~> M
+> `(\x (\y x))` throws away its second argument:
+`(((\x (\y x)) M) N) ~~> M`
and so on.
@@ -309,13 +719,11 @@ both represent the same function, the identity function. However, we said above
(\z z)
-yet when applied to any argument M, all of these will always return M. So they have the same extension. It's also true, though you may not yet be in a position to see, that no other argument can differentiate between them when they're supplied as an argument to it. However, these expressions are all syntactically distinct.
+yet when applied to any argument M, all of these will always return M. So they have the same extension. It's also true, though you may not yet be in a position to see, that no other function can differentiate between them when they're supplied as an argument to it. However, these expressions are all syntactically distinct.
The first two expressions are *convertible*: in particular the first reduces to the second. So they can be regarded as proof-theoretically equivalent even though they're not syntactically identical. However, the proof theory we've given so far doesn't permit you to reduce the second expression to the third. So these lambda expressions are non-equivalent.
-There's an extension of the proof-theory we've presented so far which does permit this further move. And in that extended proof theory, all computable functions with the same extension do turn out to be equivalent (convertible). However, at that point, we still won't be working with the traditional mathematical notion of a function as a set of ordered pairs. One reason is that the latter but not the former permits uncomputable functions. A second reason is that the latter but not the former prohibits functions from applying to themselves. We discussed this some at the end of seminar (and further discussion is best pursued in person).
-
-
+There's an extension of the proof-theory we've presented so far which does permit this further move. And in that extended proof theory, all computable functions with the same extension do turn out to be equivalent (convertible). However, at that point, we still won't be working with the traditional mathematical notion of a function as a set of ordered pairs. One reason is that the latter but not the former permits uncomputable functions. A second reason is that the latter but not the former prohibits functions from applying to themselves. We discussed this some at the end of Monday's meeting (and further discussion is best pursued in person).
@@ -325,7 +733,11 @@ Booleans and pairs
Our definition of these is reviewed in [[Assignment1]].
-
+It's possible to do the assignment without using a Scheme interpreter, however
+you should take this opportunity to [get Scheme installed on your
+computer](/how_to_get_the_programming_languages_running_on_your_computer), and
+[get started learning Scheme](/learning_scheme). It will help you test out
+proposed answers to the assignment.