- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Jan Christiansen <jac_at_informatik.uni-kiel.de>

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:08:17 +0100

On 16.12.2010, at 16:13, Sebastian Fischer wrote:

*> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 15:47 +0100, Jan Christiansen wrote:
*

*>>> 1. In a lazy language with call-time choice, choice is idempotent.
*

*>>
*

*>> This is only the case if you consider sets but in fact all
*

*>> implementations use "multisets".
*

*>
*

*> I concluded this independently from an implementation using the law
*

*>
*

*> f (a ? b) = f a ? f b
*

*>
*

*> and laziness.
*

So, would it be bad if you only have a weaker form of this law?

Something like

remove-dup (f a ? b) = remove-dup (f a ? f b)

*> The laws of the Sharing monad for lazy nondeterministic programming in
*

*> Haskell (ICFP'09) also hold only modulo idempotence of mplus.
*

I am not sure whether i am getting this correctly. That is, the mplus

operator of a sharing monad has to be idempotent? Even if f (a ? b) =

f a ? f b does not hold generally? This would contradict a statement I

have made below.

*>> Furthermore if you want to assign a
*

*>> denotational semantics to encapsulation you probably need a multiset
*

*>> model anyway.
*

*>
*

*> Why?
*

I concluded this from the behaviour of the encapsulation in kics. But

maybe this behaviour does not show up for other approaches to

encapsulation.

test1 = (\[x] -> allValuesB (searchTree x)) [0?1]

test2 = (\[x] -> allValuesB (searchTree x)) ([0]?[1])

We get test1 = [0,1] and test2 = [0]?[1]. That is, although [0?1] and

[0]?[1] have the same set-valued semantics we can distinguish them

using encapsulation. Do others think that encapsulation should behave

differently in this example?

*> My impression is that an evaluation-order independent formalism for
*

*> laziness with call-time choice that does not imply idempotence is not
*

*> easy to define. A denotational semantics should probably be evaluation
*

*> order independent and model laziness so I think it is more difficult
*

*> to
*

*> use multisets there than it is to use sets.
*

I definitely second this. In fact, I think that a "denotational"

semantics with multisets would be quite similar to your Sharing monad

approach. While a set-valued semantics can employ the multialgebraic

model (that is, all non-determinism is flattened out) a multiset-

valued semantics has to employ the poweralgebraic model (that is, data

structures contain non-determinism). But while the multialgebraic

model models call-time choice you have to do extra work to get call-

time choice in the poweralgebraic model.

By the way right now I think that you also have to use multisets if

you want to assign a denotational semantics to recursive let

expressions like they are implemented by Kics and PAKCS.

Cheers, Jan

_______________________________________________

curry mailing list

curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE

http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry

Received on Fr Dez 17 2010 - 11:10:17 CET

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:08:17 +0100

On 16.12.2010, at 16:13, Sebastian Fischer wrote:

So, would it be bad if you only have a weaker form of this law?

Something like

remove-dup (f a ? b) = remove-dup (f a ? f b)

I am not sure whether i am getting this correctly. That is, the mplus

operator of a sharing monad has to be idempotent? Even if f (a ? b) =

f a ? f b does not hold generally? This would contradict a statement I

have made below.

I concluded this from the behaviour of the encapsulation in kics. But

maybe this behaviour does not show up for other approaches to

encapsulation.

test1 = (\[x] -> allValuesB (searchTree x)) [0?1]

test2 = (\[x] -> allValuesB (searchTree x)) ([0]?[1])

We get test1 = [0,1] and test2 = [0]?[1]. That is, although [0?1] and

[0]?[1] have the same set-valued semantics we can distinguish them

using encapsulation. Do others think that encapsulation should behave

differently in this example?

I definitely second this. In fact, I think that a "denotational"

semantics with multisets would be quite similar to your Sharing monad

approach. While a set-valued semantics can employ the multialgebraic

model (that is, all non-determinism is flattened out) a multiset-

valued semantics has to employ the poweralgebraic model (that is, data

structures contain non-determinism). But while the multialgebraic

model models call-time choice you have to do extra work to get call-

time choice in the poweralgebraic model.

By the way right now I think that you also have to use multisets if

you want to assign a denotational semantics to recursive let

expressions like they are implemented by Kics and PAKCS.

Cheers, Jan

_______________________________________________

curry mailing list

curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE

http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry

Received on Fr Dez 17 2010 - 11:10:17 CET

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Do Jun 20 2024 - 07:15:11 CEST
*