From: Chris
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:43:38 +0000 (-0500)
Subject: edits
X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=8a2e3fac5b5faf8eebef6b4c24db35dfc101c07c;ds=sidebyside
edits
---
diff --git a/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn b/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn
index 2d9035a7..d7a2cf12 100644
--- a/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn
+++ b/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn
@@ -77,10 +77,11 @@ tick marks, Grecification, or capitalization), there is no need to
distinguish expression abstraction from type abstraction by also
changing the shape of the lambda.
-This expression is a polymorphic version of the identity function. It
-defines one general identity function that can be adapted for use with
-expressions of any type. In order to get it ready to apply this
-identity function to, say, a variable of type boolean, just do this:
+The expression immediately below is a polymorphic version of the
+identity function. It defines one general identity function that can
+be adapted for use with expressions of any type. In order to get it
+ready to apply this identity function to, say, a variable of type
+boolean, just do this:
`(Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)) [t]`

@@ -142,13 +143,16 @@ other words, the instantiation turns a Church number into a
pair-manipulating function, which is the heart of the strategy for
this version of predecessor.
-But of course, the type `Pair` (in this simplified example) is defined
-in terms of Church numbers. If we tried to replace the type for
-Church numbers with a concrete (simple) type, we would have to replace
-each `X` with `(N -> N -> N) -> N`. But then we'd have to replace
-each `N` with `(X -> X) -> X -> X`. And then replace each `X`
-with... ad infinitum. If we had to choose a concrete type built
-entirely from explicit base types, we'd be unable to proceed.
+Could we try to build a system for doing Church arithmetic in which
+the type for numbers always manipulated ordered pairs? The problem is
+that the ordered pairs we need here are pairs of numbers. If we tried
+to replace the type for Church numbers with a concrete (simple) type,
+we would have to replace each `X` with the type for Pairs, `(N -> N ->
+N) -> N`. But then we'd have to replace each of these `N`'s with the
+type for Church numbers, `(X -> X) -> X -> X`. And then we'd have to
+replace each of these `X`'s with... ad infinitum. If we had to choose
+a concrete type built entirely from explicit base types, we'd be
+unable to proceed.
[See Benjamin C. Pierce. 2002. *Types and Programming Languages*, MIT
Press, chapter 23.]