X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=topics%2Fweek3_combinatory_logic.mdwn;h=a176603cfc57571957c0a5b16f407a83b16ed2b5;hp=598112788e0edb6fa887ecd66415d3618d323145;hb=d765cd3f1ae243cedf9ae80fcbf9f1051ff72c52;hpb=b2419a4f0b2553436526080563affc9877b278f1 diff --git a/topics/week3_combinatory_logic.mdwn b/topics/week3_combinatory_logic.mdwn index 59811278..a176603c 100644 --- a/topics/week3_combinatory_logic.mdwn +++ b/topics/week3_combinatory_logic.mdwn @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ -Combinators and Combinatorial Logic -=================================== +Combinators and Combinatory Logic +================================= Combinatory logic is of interest here in part because it provides a useful computational system that is equivalent to the lambda calculus, @@ -30,11 +30,27 @@ Lambda expressions that have no free variables are known as **combinators**. Her > **B** is defined to be: `\f g x. f (g x)`. (So `B f g` is the composition `\x. f (g x)` of `f` and `g`.) -> **C** is defined to be: `\f x y. f y x`. (So `C f` is a function like `f` except it expects its first two arguments in swapped order.) +> **C** is defined to be: `\f x y. f y x`. (So `C f` is a function like `f` except it expects its first two arguments in flipped order.) > **W** is defined to be: `\f x . f x x`. (So `W f` accepts one argument and gives it to `f` twice. What is the meaning of `W multiply`?) -> **ω** (that is, lower-case omega) is defined to be: `\x. x x` +> **ω** (that is, lower-case omega) is defined to be: `\x. x x` + + + + + + It's possible to build a logical system equally powerful as the lambda calculus (and readily intertranslatable with it) using just combinators, considered as atomic operations. Such a language doesn't have any variables in it: not just no free variables, but no variables at all. @@ -56,7 +72,7 @@ duplicators. everyone hit himself S/(S!NP) (S!NP)/NP (S!NP)!((S!NP)/NP) - \fAx[fx] \y\z[HIT y z] \h\u[huu] + \fAx[fx] \y\z[HIT y z] \h\u[huu] --------------------------------- S!NP \u[HIT u u] -------------------------------------------- @@ -64,7 +80,7 @@ duplicators. Here, "A" is our crude markdown approximation of the universal quantifier. Notice that the semantic value of *himself* is exactly `W`. -The reflexive pronoun in direct object position combines with the transitive verb. The result is an intransitive verb phrase that takes a subject argument, duplicates that argument, and feeds the two copies to the transitive verb meaning. +The reflexive pronoun in direct object position combines with the transitive verb. The result is an intransitive verb phrase that takes a subject argument, duplicates that argument, and feeds the two copies to the transitive verb meaning. Note that `W <~~> S(CI)`: @@ -80,7 +96,7 @@ W ###A different set of reduction rules### Ok, here comes a shift in thinking. Instead of defining combinators as equivalent to certain lambda terms, -we can define combinators by what they do. If we have the I combinator followed by any expression X, +we can define combinators by what they do. If we have the I combinator followed by any expression X, I will take that expression as its argument and return that same expression as the result. In pictures, IX ~~> X @@ -93,7 +109,7 @@ The reduction rule for K is also straightforward: KXY ~~> X -That is, K throws away its second argument. The reduction rule for S can be constructed by examining +That is, K throws away its second argument. The reduction rule for S can be constructed by examining the defining lambda term: 
S ≡ \fgx.fx(gx)
@@ -102,9 +118,9 @@ S takes three arguments, duplicates the third argument, and feeds one copy to th SFGX ~~> FX(GX) -If the meaning of a function is nothing more than how it behaves with respect to its arguments, +If the meaning of a function is nothing more than how it behaves with respect to its arguments, these reduction rules capture the behavior of the combinators S, K, and I completely. -We can use these rules to compute without resorting to beta reduction. +We can use these rules to compute without resorting to beta reduction. For instance, we can show how the I combinator is equivalent to a certain crafty combination of Ss and Ks: @@ -120,39 +136,41 @@ one sequence of symbols (e.g., a redex) into another (a reduced form). It's worth noting that the reduction rules for Combinatory Logic are considerably more simple than, say, beta reduction. Also, since there are no variables in Combiantory Logic, there is no need to worry -about variable collision. +about variable collision. Combinatory Logic is what you have when you choose a set of combinators and regulate their behavior with a set of reduction rules. As we said, the most common system uses S, K, and I as defined here. ###The equivalence of the untyped lambda calculus and combinatory logic### -We've claimed that Combinatory Logic is equivalent to the lambda -calculus. If that's so, then S, K, and I must be enough to accomplish -any computational task imaginable. Actually, S and K must suffice, -since we've just seen that we can simulate I using only S and K. In -order to get an intuition about what it takes to be Turing complete, -recall our discussion of the lambda calculus in terms of a text editor. -A text editor has the power to transform any arbitrary text into any other arbitrary text. The way it does this is by deleting, copying, and reordering characters. We've already seen that K deletes its second argument, so we have deletion covered. S duplicates and reorders, so we have some reason to hope that S and K are enough to define arbitrary functions. - -We've already established that the behavior of combinatory terms can -be perfectly mimicked by lambda terms: just replace each combinator -with its equivalent lambda term, i.e., replace I with `\x.x`, replace -K with `\fxy.x`, and replace S with `\fgx.fx(gx)`. So the behavior of -any combination of combinators in Combinatory Logic can be exactly -reproduced by a lambda term. - -How about the other direction? Here is a method for converting an -arbitrary lambda term into an equivalent Combinatory Logic term using -only S, K, and I. Besides the intrinsic beauty of this mapping, and -the importance of what it says about the nature of binding and -computation, it is possible to hear an echo of computing with -continuations in this conversion strategy (though you wouldn't be able -to hear these echos until we've covered a considerable portion of the -rest of the course). In addition, there is a direct linguistic -appliction of this mapping in chapter 17 of Barker and Shan 2014, -where it is used to establish a correpsondence between two natural -language grammars, one of which is based on lambda-like abstraction, -the other of which is based on Combinatory Logic like manipulations. +We've claimed that Combinatory Logic is equivalent to the lambda calculus. If +that's so, then S, K, and I must be enough to accomplish any computational task +imaginable. Actually, S and K must suffice, since we've just seen that we can +simulate I using only S and K. In order to get an intuition about what it +takes to be Turing complete, recall our discussion of the lambda calculus in +terms of a text editor. A text editor has the power to transform any arbitrary +text into any other arbitrary text. +The way it does this is by deleting, copying, and reordering characters. We've +already seen that K deletes its second argument, so we have deletion covered. +S duplicates and reorders, so we have some reason to hope that S and K are +enough to define arbitrary functions. + +We've already established that the behavior of combinatory terms can be +perfectly mimicked by lambda terms: just replace each combinator with its +equivalent lambda term, i.e., replace I with `\x.x`, replace K with `\fxy.x`, +and replace S with `\fgx.fx(gx)`. So the behavior of any combination of +combinators in Combinatory Logic can be exactly reproduced by a lambda term. + +How about the other direction? Here is a method for converting an arbitrary +lambda term into an equivalent Combinatory Logic term using only S, K, and I. +Besides the intrinsic beauty of this mapping, and the importance of what it +says about the nature of binding and computation, it is possible to hear an +echo of computing with continuations in this conversion strategy (though you +wouldn't be able to hear these echos until we've covered a considerable portion +of the rest of the course). In addition, there is a direct linguistic +appliction of this mapping in chapter 17 of Barker and Shan 2014, where it is +used to establish a correpsondence between two natural language grammars, one +of which is based on lambda-like abstraction, the other of which is based on +Combinatory Logic like manipulations. Assume that for any lambda term T, [T] is the equivalent combinatory logic term. The we can define the [.] mapping as follows: @@ -163,28 +181,27 @@ Assume that for any lambda term T, [T] is the equivalent combinatory logic term. 5. [\a.(M N)] S[\a.M][\a.N] 6. [\a\b.M] [\a[\b.M]] -It's easy to understand these rules based on what S, K and I do. The first rule says +It's easy to understand these rules based on what S, K and I do. The first rule says that variables are mapped to themselves. -The second rule says that the way to translate an application is to translate the +The second rule says that the way to translate an application is to translate the first element and the second element separately. The third rule should be obvious. The fourth rule should also be fairly self-evident: since what a lambda term such as `\x.y` does it throw away its first argument and return `y`, that's exactly what the combinatory logic translation should do. And indeed, `Ky` is a function that throws away its argument and returns `y`. The fifth rule deals with an abstract whose body is an application: the S combinator takes its next argument (which will fill the role of the original variable a) and copies it, feeding one copy to the translation of \a.M, and the other copy to the translation of \a.N. This ensures that any free occurrences of a inside M or N will end up taking on the appropriate value. Finally, the last rule says that if the body of an abstract is itself an abstract, translate the inner abstract first, and then do the outermost. (Since the translation of [\b.M] will not have any lambdas in it, we can be sure that we won't end up applying rule 6 again in an infinite loop.) -[Fussy notes: if the original lambda term has free variables in it, so will the combinatory logic translation. Feel free to worry about this, though you should be confident that it makes sense. You should also convince yourself that if the original lambda term contains no free variables---i.e., is a combinator---then the translation will consist only of S, K, and I (plus parentheses). One other detail: this translation algorithm builds expressions that combine lambdas with combinators. For instance, the translation of our boolean false `\x.\y.y` is `[\x[\y.y]] = [\x.I] = KI`. In the intermediate stage, we have `\x.I`, which mixes combinators in the body of a lambda abstract. It's possible to avoid this if you want to, but it takes some careful thought. See, e.g., Barendregt 1984, page 156.] - -[Various, slightly differing translation schemes from combinatorial -logic to the lambda calculus are also possible. These generate -different metatheoretical correspondences between the two -calculii. Consult Hindley and Seldin for details. Also, note that the -combinatorial proof theory needs to be strengthened with axioms beyond -anything we've here described in order to make [M] convertible with -[N] whenever the original lambda-terms M and N are convertible. But -then, we've been a bit cavalier about giving the full set of reduction -rules for the lambda calculus in a similar way. For instance, one -issue is whether reduction rules (in either the lambda calculus or -Combinatory Logic) apply to embedded expressions. Generally, we want -that to happen, but making it happen requires adding explicit axioms.] +[Fussy notes: if the original lambda term has free variables in it, so will the combinatory logic translation. Feel free to worry about this, though you should be confident that it makes sense. You should also convince yourself that if the original lambda term contains no free variables---i.e., is a combinator---then the translation will consist only of S, K, and I (plus parentheses). One other detail: this translation algorithm builds expressions that combine lambdas with combinators. For instance, the translation of our boolean false `\x.\y.y` is `[\x[\y.y]] = [\x.I] = KI`. In the intermediate stage, we have `\x.I`, which mixes combinators in the body of a lambda abstract. It's possible to avoid this if you want to, but it takes some careful thought. See, e.g., Barendregt 1984, page 156.] + +(Various, slightly differing translation schemes from combinatory logic to the +lambda calculus are also possible. These generate different metatheoretical +correspondences between the two calculii. Consult Hindley and Seldin for +details. Also, note that the combinatorial proof theory needs to be +strengthened with axioms beyond anything we've here described in order to make +[M] convertible with [N] whenever the original lambda-terms M and N are +convertible. But then, we've been a bit cavalier about giving the full set of +reduction rules for the lambda calculus in a similar way. For instance, one +issue is whether reduction rules (in either the lambda calculus or Combinatory +Logic) apply to embedded expressions. Generally, we want that to happen, but +making it happen requires adding explicit axioms.) Let's check that the translation of the false boolean behaves as expected by feeding it two arbitrary arguments: @@ -209,17 +226,18 @@ The orginal lambda term lifts its first argument (think of it as reversing the o Voilà: the combinator takes any X and Y as arguments, and returns Y applied to X. One very nice property of combinatory logic is that there is no need to worry about alphabetic variance, or -variable collision---since there are no (bound) variables, there is no possibility of accidental variable capture, +variable collision---since there are no (bound) variables, there is no possibility of accidental variable capture, and so reduction can be performed without any fear of variable collision. We haven't mentioned the intricacies of -alpha equivalence or safe variable substitution, but they are in fact quite intricate. (The best way to gain +alpha equivalence or safe variable substitution, but they are in fact quite intricate. (The best way to gain an appreciation of that intricacy is to write a program that performs lambda reduction.) -Back to linguistic applications: one consequence of the equivalence between the lambda calculus and combinatory +Back to linguistic applications: one consequence of the equivalence between the lambda calculus and combinatory logic is that anything that can be done by binding variables can just as well be done with combinators. -This has given rise to a style of semantic analysis called Variable Free Semantics (in addition to +This has given rise to a style of semantic analysis called Variable Free Semantics (in addition to Szabolcsi's papers, see, for instance, -Pauline Jacobson's 1999 *Linguistics and Philosophy* paper, "Towards a variable-free Semantics"). -Somewhat ironically, reading strings of combinators is so difficult that most practitioners of variable-free semantics +Pauline Jacobson's 1999 *Linguistics and Philosophy* paper, "Towards a variable-free Semantics"). + +Somewhat ironically, reading strings of combinators is so difficult that most practitioners of variable-free semantics express their meanings using the lambda-calculus rather than combinatory logic; perhaps they should call their enterprise Free Variable Free Semantics. @@ -228,14 +246,13 @@ A philosophical connection: Quine went through a phase in which he developed a v Quine, Willard. 1960. "Variables explained away" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Volume 104: 343--347. Also in W. V. Quine. 1960. Selected Logical Papers. Random House: New York. 227--235. -The reason this was important to Quine is similar to the worry that -using non-referring expressions such as Santa Claus might commit one -to believing in non-existant things. Quine's slogan was that "to be -is to be the value of a variable." What this was supposed to mean is -that if and only if an object could serve as the value of some -variable, we are committed to recognizing the existence of that object -in our ontology. Obviously, if there ARE no variables, this slogan -has to be rethought. +The reason this was important to Quine is similar to the worry that using +non-referring expressions such as Santa Claus might commit one to believing in +non-existant things. Quine's slogan was that "to be is to be the value of a +variable." What this was supposed to mean is that if and only if an object +could serve as the value of some variable, we are committed to recognizing the +existence of that object in our ontology. Obviously, if there ARE no +variables, this slogan has to be rethought. Quine did not appear to appreciate that Shoenfinkel had already invented combinatory logic, though he later wrote an introduction to Shoenfinkel's key paper reprinted in Jean @@ -244,18 +261,18 @@ van Heijenoort (ed) 1967 From Frege to Goedel, a source book in mathematic Cresswell has also developed a variable-free approach of some philosophical and linguistic interest in two books in the 1990's. -A final linguistic application: Steedman's Combinatory Categorial Grammar, where the "Combinatory" is +A final linguistic application: Steedman's Combinatory Categorial Grammar, where the "Combinatory" is from combinatory logic (see especially his 2012 book, Taking Scope). Steedman attempts to build a syntax/semantics interface using a small number of combinators, including T ≡ `\xy.yx`, B ≡ `\fxy.f(xy)`, -and our friend S. Steedman used Smullyan's fanciful bird +and our friend S. Steedman used Smullyan's fanciful bird names for the combinators, Thrush, Bluebird, and Starling. -Many of these combinatory logics, in particular, the SKI system, +Many of these combinatory logics, in particular, the SKI system, are Turing complete. In other words: every computation we know how to describe can be represented in a logical system consisting of only a single primitive operation! The combinators K and S correspond to two well-known axioms of sentential logic: -###A connection between Combinatory Logic and logic logic### +###A connection between Combinatory Logic and Sentential Logic### One way of getting a feel for the power of the SK basis is to note that the following two axioms @@ -265,12 +282,14 @@ that the following two axioms when combined with modus ponens (from `A` and `A --> B`, conclude `B`) are complete for the implicational fragment of intuitionistic logic. +(To get a complete proof theory for *classical* sentential logic, you +need only add one more axiom, constraining the behavior of a new connective "not".) The way we'll favor for viewing the relationship between these axioms and the S and K combinators is that the axioms correspond to type -schemas for the combinators. Thsi will become more clear once we have +schemas for the combinators. This will become more clear once we have a theory of types in view. -Here's more to read about combinatorial logic. +Here's more to read about combinatory logic. Surely the most entertaining exposition is Smullyan's [[!wikipedia To_Mock_a_Mockingbird]]. Other sources include