From f6ffcb0a876f3e27d478217390ff2874c6b12dfb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Pryor Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:28:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] add assignment2 Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor --- assignment2.mdwn | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+) create mode 100644 assignment2.mdwn diff --git a/assignment2.mdwn b/assignment2.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..04c3a282 --- /dev/null +++ b/assignment2.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +We'll assume the "Version 3" implementation of lists and numbers throughout. So: + +
zero ≡ \s z. z
+succ ≡ \n. \s z. s (n s z)
+iszero ≡ \n. n (\x. false) true
+add ≡ \m \n. m succ n
+mul ≡ \m \n. \s. m (n s)
+ +And: + +
empty ≡ \f z. z
+make-list ≡ \hd tl. \f z. f hd (tl f z)
+isempty ≡ \lst. lst (\hd sofar. false) true
+extract-head ≡ \lst. lst (\hd sofar. hd) junk
+ +The `junk` in `extract-head` is what you get back if you evaluate: + + extract-head empty + +As we said, the predecessor and the extract-tail functions are harder to define. We'll just give you one implementation of these, so that you'll be able to test and evaluate lambda-expressions using them in Scheme or OCaml. + +
predecesor ≡ (\shift n. n shift (make-pair zero junk) get-second) (\pair. pair (\fst snd. make-pair (successor fst) fst))
+extract-tail ≡ (\shift lst. lst shift (make-pair empty junk) get-second) (\hd pair. pair (\fst snd. make-pair (make-list hd fst) fst))
+ +The `junk` is what you get back if you evaluate: + + predecessor zero + + extract-tail empty + +Alternatively, we might reasonably declare the predecessor of zero to be zero (this is a common construal of the predecessor function in discrete math), and the tail of the empty list to be the empty list. + + +For these exercises, assume that `LIST` is the result of evaluating: + + (make-list a (make-list b (make-list c (make-list d (make-list e empty))))) + + +1. What would be the result of evaluating: + + LIST make-list empty + +2. Based on your answer to question 1, how might you implement the **map** function? Expected behavior: + + 
map f LIST <~~> (make-list (f a) (make-list (f b) (make-list (f c) (make-list (f d) (make-list (f e) empty)))))
+ +3. Based on your answer to question 1, how might you implement the **filter** function? The expected behavior is that: + + filter f LIST + + should evaluate to a list containing just those of `a`, `b`, `c`, `d`, and `e` such that `f` applied to them evaluates to `true`. + +4. How would you implement map using the either the version 1 or the version 2 implementation of lists? + +5. Our version 3 implementation of the numbers are usually called "Church numerals". If `m` is a Church numeral, then `m s z` applies the function `s` to the result of applying `s` to ... to `z`, for a total of *m* applications of `s`, where *m* is the number that `m` represents or encodes. + + Given the primitive arithmetic functions above, how would you implement the less-than-or-equal function? Here is the expected behavior, where `one` abbreviates `succ zero`, and `two` abbreviates `succ (succ zero)`. + + less-than-or-equal zero zero ~~> true + less-than-or-equal zero one ~~> true + less-than-or-equal zero two ~~> true + less-than-or-equal one zero ~~> false + less-than-or-equal one one ~~> true + less-than-or-equal one two ~~> true + less-than-or-equal two zero ~~> false + less-than-or-equal two one ~~> false + less-than-or-equal two two ~~> true + + You'll need to make use of the predecessor function, but it's not important to understand how the implementation we gave above works. You can treat it as a black box. + -- 2.11.0