From: jim <jim@web>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:02:46 +0000 (-0500)
Subject: update links
X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=1e1c2aa31bd746a5de73a7563df469b75a2e8cb5

update links
---

diff --git a/exercises/_assignment4.mdwn b/exercises/_assignment4.mdwn
index 589932e2..1ef8917b 100644
--- a/exercises/_assignment4.mdwn
+++ b/exercises/_assignment4.mdwn
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ For instance, `fact 0 ~~> 1`, `fact 1 ~~> 1`, `fact 2 ~~> 2`, `fact 3 ~~>
 
         fac 4
 
-6.  For this question, we want to implement **sets** of numbers in terms of lists of numbers, where we make sure as we construct those lists that they never contain a single number more than once. (It would be even more efficient if we made sure that the lists were always sorted, but we won't try to implement that refinement here.) To enforce the idea of modularity, let's suppose you don't know the details of how the lists are implemented. You just are given the functions defined below for them (but pretend you don't see the actual definitions). These define lists in terms of [[one of the new encodings discussed last week|/topics/week3_more_lists_]].
+6.  For this question, we want to implement **sets** of numbers in terms of lists of numbers, where we make sure as we construct those lists that they never contain a single number more than once. (It would be even more efficient if we made sure that the lists were always sorted, but we won't try to implement that refinement here.) To enforce the idea of modularity, let's suppose you don't know the details of how the lists are implemented. You just are given the functions defined below for them (but pretend you don't see the actual definitions). These define lists in terms of [[one of the new encodings discussed last week|/topics/week3_lists#v5-lists]].
     <!--
     let empty? = \xs. xs (\y ys. false) true in
     let head = \xs. xs (\y ys. y) err in
@@ -178,6 +178,6 @@ a *pair* of functions `h` and `g`, as follows:
 definitions of `even?` and `odd?`?
 
 					
-11. (More challenging.) Using our derivation of `Y` from [[this week's notes|topics/week4_fixed_point_combinators_]] as a model, construct a pair `Y1` and `Y2` that behave in the way described above.
+11. (More challenging.) Using our derivation of `Y` from [[this week's notes|topics/week4_fixed_point_combinators#deriving-y]] as a model, construct a pair `Y1` and `Y2` that behave in the way described above.
 
     Here is one hint to get you started: remember that in the notes, we constructed a fixed point for `h` by evolving it into `H` and using `H H` as `h`'s fixed point. We suggested the thought exercise, how might you instead evolve `h` into some `T` and then use `T T T` as `h`'s fixed point. Try solving this problem first. It may help give you the insights you need to define a `Y1` and `Y2`.