click on pow 2 3 to get 3 2, then fn x > 2 (2 (2 x)) ). \la lambda - x - (x \la y.(y x)) - - x - \la y.(y x) - y - (y x) - - y - - x Now you do.Also have a look at the examples section below, where you can click on an application to reduce it (e.g. Hereâs an example: Example: x.(x y.(y x)) Example Answer: note indentation. How can this be proven? And better yet, are there any references for this? I can't seem to find much on $\eta$-reduction in lambda calculus. 1 Use Type an expression into the following text area (using the fn x > body synatx), click parse, then click on applications to evaluate them. 3 is the parameter the function is applied to. It turns out that this theorem holds for any sensible basic notion of reduction: beta-y, beta-z and something called beta-need, which we did not discuss. They dabbled in alternatives (for example the I calculus) but could not resolve the problem. y$ which are clearly equal but its not obvious to me in general. An example of a simple expression could look like the following: (x.x) 3 (x.x) is a function, as we have seen in the previous example. Not even the Lambda Calculus inventors were sure about this. y$ or $\eta$-reduce it to get $\lambda x. Despite being purely theoretical, Turing machines are important: A state machine reading and writing symbols on an infinite tape is a useful abstraction of a CPU reading from and writing to RAM. Clearly we can $\beta$-reduce this to get $\lambda t. Combinators Lambda Calculus They taught us Turing machines in my computer science classes. The problem I am having is I can't seem to understand how $\beta$ and $\eta$ interact. And $\twoheadrightarrow$ is the transitive-relfexive closure of said relation.Ä®xercise 1.6 was to prove that $\to_\eta$ is strongly normalising, which can be shown by considering a "depth" function on terms, and showing that this strictly decreases on $\eta$-reduction. Indeed, by induction with respect to $M \to_$ is the union of both. These $\beta$-reduction steps can be "permuted forward", yielding an infinite $\beta$-reduction. Now the proof is sketched in the book but I am having trouble realising it:įirst observe that in an infinite $\beta\eta$-reduction sequence there must be infinitely many $\beta$-reduction steps (cf. x2 2) 22 4 Lambda Calculus Syntax and Semantics The syntax of a -calculus expression is as follows: e :: v v. In lambda calculus, this is called beta reduction, and weâd write this example as: ( a b. we use the following -calculus syntax: (x. If there is an infinite $\beta \eta$-reduction sequence starting with a term $M$ then there is an infinite $\beta$-reduction seqeunce from $M$. In fact, one might argue they focus too much on making students memorize and apply formulas such as a 2 b 2 for a 3 and b 4. So it's a pedagogical trade-off.In Sorensen and Urzyczyn's book there is a lemma (1.3.11) which I am having a hard time proving. It maybetaughtinacomputabilitycourseasaclassical com-putationmodel. But this extra baggage has the advantage of making it clearer what's going on: it makes it easier to see where a reduction is happening in a context and where actual computation is happening. 1 Introduction Thepureuntypedlambdacalculus is oftentaughtas part of thecomputer sci-encecurriculum. Note that it does not matter in principle where the beta-redex is, and there could be more than one: Examples. If you're only ever going to use a single notion of reduction, introducing contexts requires some extra syntactic baggage. Lambda Calculus: Properties of Beta-Reduction. If you're going to manipulate several different notions of reduction, the presentation in terms of contexts is more compact: there's a single context rule, and its formulation is usually obvious so it can be omitted, all that needs to be stated is the permitted contexts if some syntactically valid contexts disallow reduction. Reading Chris Hankin's book, "An Introduction to Lambda Calculus for Computer Scientists", I learnt that the rules for reductions in the pure $\lambda$-Calculus are the $\beta$-reduction rule,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |