(no commit message)

[lambda.git] / schedule_of_topics.mdwn

diff --git a/schedule_of_topics.mdwn b/schedule_of_topics.mdwn
index d4c94db..fad5256 100644 (file)
--- a/schedule_of_topics.mdwn
+++ b/schedule_of_topics.mdwn
@@ -13,10 +13,10 @@ This is very sketchy at this point, but it should give a sense of our intended s
 ## The "pure" or untyped lambda calculus ##
 
 1.     Beta reduction
 ## The "pure" or untyped lambda calculus ##
 
 1.     Beta reduction

-2.     Subtitution; using alpha-conversion and other strategies
+2.     Substitution; using alpha-conversion and other strategies

 3.     Conversion versus Reduction
 4.     Eta reduction and "extensionality"
 3.     Conversion versus Reduction
 4.     Eta reduction and "extensionality"

-5.     Different evaluation strategies
+5.     Different evaluation strategies (call by name, call by value, etc.)

 6.     Strongly normalizing vs weakly normalizing vs non-normalizing; Church-Rosser Theorem(s)
 
 7.     Encoding pairs (and triples and ...)
 6.     Strongly normalizing vs weakly normalizing vs non-normalizing; Church-Rosser Theorem(s)
 
 7.     Encoding pairs (and triples and ...)


@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ This is very sketchy at this point, but it should give a sense of our intended s
 13.    Representing lists as folds
 14.    Typical higher-order functions: map, filter, fold
 
 13.    Representing lists as folds
 14.    Typical higher-order functions: map, filter, fold
 

-15.    Recursion exploiting the fold-like representation of numbers and lists
+15.    Recursion exploiting the fold-like representation of numbers and lists ([deforestation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_%28computer_science%29), [zippers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipper_%28data_structure%29))

 16.    General recursion using omega
 17.    The Y combinator(s); more on evaluation strategies
 
 16.    General recursion using omega
 17.    The Y combinator(s); more on evaluation strategies
 


@@ -51,9 +51,9 @@ This is very sketchy at this point, but it should give a sense of our intended s
 10.    [Phil/ling application] inner/outer domain semantics for positive free logic
        <!-- <http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/antonelli/papers/pegasus-JPL.pdf> -->
 
 10.    [Phil/ling application] inner/outer domain semantics for positive free logic
        <!-- <http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/antonelli/papers/pegasus-JPL.pdf> -->
 

-11.    [Phil/ling application] King vs Schiffer in King 2007, pp 103ff.
+11.    [Phil/ling application] King vs Schiffer in King 2007, pp 103ff. [which paper?](http://rci.rutgers.edu/~jeffreck/pub.php)

 12. [Phil/ling application] King and Pryor on that clauses, predicates vs singular property-designators
 12. [Phil/ling application] King and Pryor on that clauses, predicates vs singular property-designators

-13.    Possible excursion: Frege's "On Concept and Object"
+13.    Possible excursion: [Frege's "On Concept and Object"](http://www.persiangig.com/pages/download/?dl=http://sahmir.persiangig.com/document/Frege%27s%20Articles/On%20Concept%20And%20object%20%28Jstore%29.pdf)

 
 14.    Curry-Howard isomorphism between simply-typed lambda and intuitionistic propositional logic
 
 
 14.    Curry-Howard isomorphism between simply-typed lambda and intuitionistic propositional logic
 


@@ -61,42 +61,40 @@ This is very sketchy at this point, but it should give a sense of our intended s
 16.    [Phil/ling application] Partee on whether NPs should be uniformly interpreted as generalized quantifiers, or instead "lifted" when necessary. Lifting = a CPS transform.
 17.    [Phil/ling application] Expletives
 
 16.    [Phil/ling application] Partee on whether NPs should be uniformly interpreted as generalized quantifiers, or instead "lifted" when necessary. Lifting = a CPS transform.
 17.    [Phil/ling application] Expletives
 

-18.    Misc references: Chris?
-       *       de Groeten on lambda-mu and linguistics?
-       *       on donkey anaphora and continuations
-       *       Wadler on symmetric sequent calculi
+18.    Some references: 
+       * [de Groote on the lambda-mu calculus in linguistics](http://www.loria.fr/%7Edegroote/papers/amsterdam01.pdf)
+       * [on donkey anaphora and continuations](http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.1.1)
+       * [Wadler on symmetric sequent calculi](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/dual-reloaded/dual-reloaded.pdf)

 
 19.    Dependent types
 
 ## Side-effects and mutation ##
 
 1.     What difference imperativity makes
 
 19.    Dependent types
 
 ## Side-effects and mutation ##
 
 1.     What difference imperativity makes

-2.     Monads we've seen, and the "monadic laws" (computer science version)
+2.     Monads we've already seen, and the "monadic laws" [computer science version: Wadler](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/baastad.pdf)

 3.     Side-effects in a purely functional setting, via monads
 4.     The basis of monads in category theory
 5.     Other interesting monads: reader monad, continuation monad
 
 3.     Side-effects in a purely functional setting, via monads
 4.     The basis of monads in category theory
 5.     Other interesting monads: reader monad, continuation monad
 

-6.     [Phil/ling application] Monsters and context-shifting, e.g. Gillies/von Fintel on "ifs"
-7.     Montague / Yoad Winter? (just have this written down in my notes, I assume Chris will remember the reference)
+6.     [Phil/ling application] Monsters and context-shifting, e.g. Gillies/von Fintel on "ifs" [not sure which paper]
+7.     Montague / Ben-avi and Winter,  [A modular approach to intensionality](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdocsummary?doi=10.1.1.73.6927)

 
 8.     Passing by reference
 
 8.     Passing by reference

-9.     [Phil/ling application] Fine and Pryor or "coordinated contents"
-
+9.     [Phil/ling application] Fine and Pryor on "coordinated contents" (see, e.g., [Hyper-Evaluativity](http://www.jimpryor.net/research/papers/Hyper-Evaluativity.txt))

 
 ## Continuations (continued) ##
 
 
 ## Continuations (continued) ##
 

-1.     Using CPS to handle abortive computations
+1.     Using CPS to handle abortive computations (think: presupposition failure, expressives)

 2.     Using CPS to do other handy things, e.g., coroutines
 3.     Making evaluation order explicit with continuations (could also be done earlier, but I think will be helpful to do after we've encountered mutation)
 2.     Using CPS to do other handy things, e.g., coroutines
 3.     Making evaluation order explicit with continuations (could also be done earlier, but I think will be helpful to do after we've encountered mutation)

-4.     Delimited continuations
-5.     [Phil/ling application] Barker/Shan on donkey anaphora
-
+4.     Delimited (quantifier scope) vs undelimited (expressives, presupposition) continuations
+5.     [Phil/ling application] [Barker/Shan on donkey anaphora](http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.1.1)

 
 ## Preemptively parallel computing and linear logic ##
 
 1.     Basics of parallel programming: semaphores/mutexes
 2.     Contrasting "preemptive" parallelism to "cooperative" parallelism (coroutines, above)
 3.     Linear logic
 
 ## Preemptively parallel computing and linear logic ##
 
 1.     Basics of parallel programming: semaphores/mutexes
 2.     Contrasting "preemptive" parallelism to "cooperative" parallelism (coroutines, above)
 3.     Linear logic

-4.     [Phil/ling application] Barker on free choice
+4.     [Phil/ling application] Barker on free choice, imperatives