X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=hints%2Fassignment_7_hint_5.mdwn;h=d44f824b05968d6de85e0cbc5b46ef97c77205b5;hp=882a62327762366dc361db0e9435c22c31d5cd3f;hb=8cf1fe240800a66d644f907fad8d618b014efd7d;hpb=f212354152a53c6a3ab018c7874570c600f463b9 diff --git a/hints/assignment_7_hint_5.mdwn b/hints/assignment_7_hint_5.mdwn index 882a6232..d44f824b 100644 --- a/hints/assignment_7_hint_5.mdwn +++ b/hints/assignment_7_hint_5.mdwn @@ -1,9 +1,22 @@ + + +* How shall we handle \[[∃x]]? As we said, GS&V really tell us how to interpret \[[∃xPx]], but for our purposes, what they say about this can be broken naturally into two pieces, such that we represent the update of our starting set `u` with \[[∃xPx]] as: -* How shall we handle \[[∃x]]? As we said, GS&V really tell us how to interpret \[[∃xPx]], but what they say about this breaks naturally into two pieces, such that we can represent the update of our starting set `u` with \[[∃xPx]] as: - -
u >>=set \[[∃x]] >>=set \[[Px]]
+	
u >>= \[[∃x]] >>= \[[Px]]
 	
+ (Extra credit: how does the discussion on pp. 25-29 of GS&V bear on the possibility of this simplification?) + What does \[[∃x]] need to be here? Here's what they say, on the top of p. 13: > Suppose an information state `s` is updated with the sentence ∃xPx. Possibilities in `s` in which no entity has the property P will be eliminated. @@ -15,17 +28,16 @@ Deferring the "property P" part, this corresponds to:
u updated with \[[∃x]] ≡
-		let extend_one = fun (one_dpm : bool dpm) ->
-			List.map (fun d -> bind_dpm one_dpm (new_peg_and_assign 'x' d)) domain
-		in bind_set u extend_one
+		let extend one_dpm (d : entity) =
+			dpm_bind one_dpm (new_peg_and_assign 'x' d)
+		in set_bind u (fun one_dpm -> List.map (fun d -> extend one_dpm d) domain)
 	
where `new_peg_and_assign` is the operation we defined in [hint 3](/hints/assignment_7_hint_3): - let new_peg_and_assign (var_to_bind : char) (d : entity) = - (* we want to return a function that we can bind to a bool dpm *) - fun (truth_value : bool) -> - fun ((r, h) : assignment * store) -> + let new_peg_and_assign (var_to_bind : char) (d : entity) : bool -> bool dpm = + fun truth_value -> + fun (r, h) -> (* first we calculate an unused index *) let new_index = List.length h (* next we store d at h[new_index], which is at the very end of h *) @@ -35,60 +47,65 @@ in let r' = fun var -> if var = var_to_bind then new_index else r var (* we pass through the same truth_value that we started with *) - in (truth_value, r', h') + in (truth_value, r', h');; - What's going on in this representation of `u` updated with \[[∃x]]? For each `bool dpm` in `u`, we collect `dpm`s that are the result of passing through their `bool`, but extending their input `(r, h)` by allocating a new peg for entity `d`, for each `d` in our whole domain of entities, and binding the variable `x` to the index of that peg. + What's going on in this proposed representation of \[[∃x]]? For each `bool dpm` in `u`, we collect `dpm`s that are the result of passing through their `bool`, but extending their input `(r, h)` by allocating a new peg for entity `d`, for each `d` in our whole domain of entities, and binding the variable `x` to the index of that peg. A later step can then filter out all the `dpm`s where the entity `d` we did that with doesn't have property P. (Again, consult GS&V pp. 25-9 for extra credit.) - A later step can then filter out all the `dpm`s according to which the entity `d` we did that with doesn't have property P. - - So if we just call the function `extend_one` defined above \[[∃x]], then `u` updated with \[[∃x]] updated with \[[Px]] is just: + If we call the function `(fun one_dom -> List.map ...)` defined above \[[∃x]], then `u` updated with \[[∃x]] updated with \[[Px]] is just:
u >>= \[[∃x]] >>= \[[Px]]
 	
or, being explicit about which "bind" operation we're representing here with `>>=`, that is: -
bind_set (bind_set u \[[∃x]]) \[[Px]]
+	
set_bind (set_bind u \[[∃x]]) \[[Px]]
 	
-* Let's compare this to what \[[∃xPx]] would look like on a non-dynamic semantics, for example, where we use a simple reader monad to implement variable binding. Reminding ourselves, we'd be working in a framework like this. (Here we implement environments or assignments as functions from variables to entities, instead of as lists of pairs of variables and entities. An assignment `r` here is what `fun c -> List.assoc c r` would have been in [week6]( +* Let's compare this to what \[[∃xPx]] would look like on a non-dynamic semantics, for example, where we use a simple Reader monad to implement variable binding. Reminding ourselves, we'd be working in a framework like this. (Here we implement environments or assignments as functions from variables to entities, instead of as lists of pairs of variables and entities. An assignment `r` here is what `fun c -> List.assoc c r` would have been in [week7]( /reader_monad_for_variable_binding).) type assignment = char -> entity;; type 'a reader = assignment -> 'a;; - let unit_reader (x : 'a) = fun r -> x;; + let reader_unit (value : 'a) : 'a reader = fun r -> value;; - let bind_reader (u : 'a reader) (f : 'a -> 'b reader) = + let reader_bind (u : 'a reader) (f : 'a -> 'b reader) : 'b reader = fun r -> let a = u r in let u' = f a in u' r;; - let getx = fun r -> r 'x';; + Here the type of a sentential clause is: + + type clause = bool reader;; + + Here are meanings for singular terms and predicates: - let lift (predicate : entity -> bool) = + let getx : entity reader = fun r -> r 'x';; + + type lifted_unary = entity reader -> bool reader;; + + let lift (predicate : entity -> bool) : lifted_unary = fun entity_reader -> fun r -> let obj = entity_reader r - in unit_reader (predicate obj) + in reader_unit (predicate obj) - `lift predicate` converts a function of type `entity -> bool` into one of type `entity reader -> bool reader`. The meaning of \[[Qx]] would then be: + The meaning of \[[Qx]] would then be:
\[[Q]] ≡ lift q
 	\[[x]] ≡ getx
 	\[[Qx]] ≡ \[[Q]] \[[x]] ≡
 		fun r ->
 			let obj = getx r
-			in unit_reader (q obj)
+			in reader_unit (q obj)
 	
Recall also how we defined \[[lambda x]], or as [we called it before](/reader_monad_for_variable_binding), \\[[who(x)]]: - let shift (var_to_bind : char) (clause : bool reader) = - (* we return a lifted predicate, that is a entity reader -> bool reader *) + let shift (var_to_bind : char) (clause : clause) : lifted_unary = fun entity_reader -> - fun (r : assignment) -> + fun r -> let new_value = entity_reader r (* remember here we're implementing assignments as functions rather than as lists of pairs *) in let r' = fun var -> if var = var_to_bind then new_value else r var @@ -96,12 +113,13 @@ Now, how would we implement quantifiers in this setting? I'll assume we have a function `exists` of type `(entity -> bool) -> bool`. That is, it accepts a predicate as argument and returns `true` if any element in the domain satisfies that predicate. We could implement the reader-monad version of that like this: - fun (lifted_predicate : entity reader -> bool reader) -> - fun r -> exists (fun (obj : entity) -> lifted_predicate (unit_reader obj) r) + fun (lifted_predicate : lifted_unary) -> + fun r -> exists (fun (obj : entity) -> + lifted_predicate (reader_unit obj) r) That would be the meaning of \[[∃]], which we'd use like this: -
\[[∃]] \[[Q]]
+	
\[[∃]] ( \[[Q]] )
 	
or this: @@ -118,11 +136,12 @@ in clause r' in let lifted_exists = fun lifted_predicate -> - fun r -> exists (fun obj -> lifted_predicate (unit_reader obj) r) + fun r -> exists (fun obj -> lifted_predicate (reader_unit obj) r) in fun bool_reader -> lifted_exists (shift 'x' bool_reader) - which we can simplify as: + which we can simplify to: + fun bool_reader -> - let shifted'' r new_value = + let shifted r new_value = let r' = fun var -> if var = 'x' then new_value else r var in bool_reader r' - in fun r -> exists (shifted'' r) + in fun r -> exists (shifted r) This gives us a value for \[[∃x]], which we use like this: -
\[[∃x]]reader ( \[[Qx]] )
+	
\[[∃x]] ( \[[Qx]] )
 	
Contrast the way we use \[[∃x]] in GS&V's system. Here we don't have a function that takes \[[Qx]] as an argument. Instead we have a operation that gets bound in a discourse chain: @@ -171,9 +191,11 @@
u >>= \[[∃x]] >>= \[[Qx]]
 	
- The crucial difference in GS&V's system is that the distinctive effect of the \[[∃x]]---to allocate new pegs in the store and associate variable `x` with the objects stored there---doesn't last only while interpreting clauses supplied as arguments to \[[∃x]]. Instead, it persists through the discourse, possibly affecting the interpretation of claims outside the logical scope of the quantifier. This is how we're able to interpret claims like: + The crucial difference in GS&V's system is that the distinctive effect of the \[[∃x]]---to allocate new pegs in the store and associate variable `x` with the objects stored there---doesn't last only while interpreting some clauses supplied as arguments to \[[∃x]]. Instead, it persists through the discourse, possibly affecting the interpretation of claims outside the logical scope of the quantifier. This is how we'll able to interpret claims like: + + > If ∃x (man x and ∃y y is wife of x) then (x kisses y). - > If ∃y (farmer y and ∃x y owns x) then (y beats x). + See the discussion on pp. 24-5 of GS&V. * Can you figure out how to handle \[[not φ]] and the other connectives? If not, here are some [more hints](/hints/assignment_7_hint_6). But try to get as far as you can on your own.