I am trying to model linear feedback shift registers in haskell. These can be modeled by polynomials over finite fields, so I am using numeric-prelude to get type classes that resemble mathematical algebraic structures more closely than those in the normal prelude.
I am by no means an expert in abstract algebra, so I have become a little confused about the IntegralDomain type class. The problem is that my book on abstract algebra (A book of abstract algebra by Charles C. Pinter) and the type classes seem to be conflicting with each other.
According to the book, the ring of polynomials over an integral domain, is itself an integral domain. Also, a ring of polynomials over a field is only an integral domain, but with the special(the fact that it is special is mentioned) property that the division algorithm holds.
That is, if F[x] is a polynomial over a field, then for a in F[x] and b!=0 in F[x], there exists q,r in F[x] such that b*q+r=a, and the degree of r is less than that of b.
The fact that this property is special to polynomials over a field, to me implies that it does not hold over any integral domain.
On the other hand, according to the type classes of numeric prelude, a polynomial over a field (that is zeroTestable) is also an IntegraldDomain. But according to the documentation, there are several laws of integralDomains, one of the being:
(a `div` b) * b + (a `mod` b) === a
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/numeric-prelude/0.4.0.1/doc/html/Algebra-IntegralDomain.html#t:C
This to me looks like the division algorithm, but then the division algorithm is true in any integral domain, including a polynomial over an integral domain contradiction my book. It is also worth noting that a polynomail over an integral domain does not have an instance for IntegralDomain in numeric-prelude(not that I can see at least, the fact that every type class is simply called C, make the documentation a little hard to read). So maybe the IntegralDomain in numeric prelude is an integral domain with the extra property that the division algorithm holds?
So is the IntegralDomain in numeric-prelude really an integral domain?
rubber duck debugging post script: While writing this question I got an idea for part of a possible explanation. Is it the requirement that "the degree of r is less than that of b." which makes the whole difference? That requirement is not in the numeric-prelude IntegralDomain. Then again, some of the other laws might imply this fact...
According to the book, a polynomial over an integral domain, is itself an integral domain.
That's not correctly phrased. The ring of polynomials over an integral domain is again an integral domain.
The ring of polynomials in one indeterminate over a field is even a principal ideal domain, as witnessed by the division algorithm, since every polynomial of degree 0 is a unit then.
In a general integral domain R, you have nonzero non-units, and if a is one, then you cannot write
X = q*a + r
with the degree of r smaller than that of a (which is 0).
Is it the requirement that "the degree of r is less than that of b." which makes the whole difference?
Precisely. That requirement guarantees that the division algorithm terminates. In a general integral domain, you can have a "canonical" choice of remainders modulo any fixed ring element, but the canonical remainder need not be "smaller" in any meaningful way, so an attempt to use the division algorithm need not terminate.
Then again, some of the other laws might imply this fact
None of the laws in Algebra.IntegralDomain imply that.
The law
(a+k*b) `mod` b === a `mod` b
is, I believe, hard to implement for a completely general integral domain, which could somewhat restrict the actual instances, but for something like Z[X] or R[X,Y] which are not PIDs, an instance is possible.
Related
I am very confused in how CLP works in Prolog. Not only do I find it hard to see the benefits (I do see it in specific cases but find it hard to generalise those) but more importantly, I can hardly make up how to correctly write a recursive predicate. Which of the following would be the correct form in a CLP(R) way?
factorial(0, 1).
factorial(N, F):- {
N > 0,
PrevN = N - 1,
factorial(PrevN, NewF),
F = N * NewF}.
or
factorial(0, 1).
factorial(N, F):- {
N > 0,
PrevN = N - 1,
F = N * NewF},
factorial(PrevN, NewF).
In other words, I am not sure when I should write code outside the constraints. To me, the first case would seem more logical, because PrevN and NewF belong to the constraints. But if that's true, I am curious to see in which cases it is useful to use predicates outside the constraints in a recursive function.
There are several overlapping questions and issues in your post, probably too many to coherently address to your complete satisfaction in a single post.
Therefore, I would like to state a few general principles first, and then—based on that—make a few specific comments about the code you posted.
First, I would like to address what I think is most important in your case:
LP ⊆ CLP
This means simply that CLP can be regarded as a superset of logic programming (LP). Whether it is to be considered a proper superset or if, in fact, it makes even more sense to regard them as denoting the same concept is somewhat debatable. In my personal view, logic programming without constraints is much harder to understand and much less usable than with constraints. Given that also even the very first Prolog systems had a constraint like dif/2 and also that essential built-in predicates like (=)/2 perfectly fit the notion of "constraint", the boundaries, if they exist at all, seem at least somewhat artificial to me, suggesting that:
LP ≈ CLP
Be that as it may, the key concept when working with CLP (of any kind) is that the constraints are available as predicates, and used in Prolog programs like all other predicates.
Therefore, whether you have the goal factorial(N, F) or { N > 0 } is, at least in principle, the same concept: Both mean that something holds.
Note the syntax: The CLP(ℛ) constraints have the form { C }, which is {}(C) in prefix notation.
Note that the goal factorial(N, F) is not a CLP(ℛ) constraint! Neither is the following:
?- { factorial(N, F) }.
ERROR: Unhandled exception: type_error({factorial(_3958,_3960)},...)
Thus, { factorial(N, F) } is not a CLP(ℛ) constraint either!
Your first example therefore cannot work for this reason alone already. (In addition, you have a syntax error in the clause head: factorial (, so it also does not compile at all.)
When you learn working with a constraint solver, check out the predicates it provides. For example, CLP(ℛ) provides {}/1 and a few other predicates, and has a dedicated syntax for stating relations that hold about floating point numbers (in this case).
Other constraint solver provide their own predicates for describing the entities of their respective domains. For example, CLP(FD) provides (#=)/2 and a few other predicates to reason about integers. dif/2 lets you reason about any Prolog term. And so on.
From the programmer's perspective, this is exactly the same as using any other predicate of your Prolog system, whether it is built-in or stems from a library. In principle, it's all the same:
A goal like list_length(Ls, L) can be read as: "The length of the list Ls is L."
A goal like { X = A + B } can be read as: The number X is equal to the sum of A and B. For example, if you are using CLP(Q), it is clear that we are talking about rational numbers in this case.
In your second example, the body of the clause is a conjunction of the form (A, B), where A is a CLP(ℛ) constraint, and B is a goal of the form factorial(PrevN, NewF).
The point is: The CLP(ℛ) constraint is also a goal! Check it out:
?- write_canonical({a,b,c}).
{','(a,','(b,c))}
true.
So, you are simply using {}/1 from library(clpr), which is one of the predicates it exports.
You are right that PrevN and NewF belong to the constraints. However, factorial(PrevN, NewF) is not part of the mini-language that CLP(ℛ) implements for reasoning over floating point numbers. Therefore, you cannot pull this goal into the CLP(ℛ)-specific part.
From a programmer's perspective, a major attraction of CLP is that it blends in completely seamlessly into "normal" logic programming, to the point that it can in fact hardly be distinguished at all from it: The constraints are simply predicates, and written down like all other goals.
Whether you label a library predicate a "constraint" or not hardly makes any difference: All predicates can be regarded as constraints, since they can only constrain answers, never relax them.
Note that both examples you post are recursive! That's perfectly OK. In fact, recursive predicates will likely be the majority of situations in which you use constraints in the future.
However, for the concrete case of factorial, your Prolog system's CLP(FD) constraints are likely a better fit, since they are completely dedicated to reasoning about integers.
My book uses this definition for the Polynomial complexity class (L is a binary language):
But by this definition, don't all languages belong to the polynomial complexity class? Because if I define A to be 1 for all languages, then A would decide all L in constant time (and therefore polynomial time), since it would return 1 immediately, meaning all languages would belong to polynomial complexity.
Why is my logic incorrect?
In my understanding, "A decides L" means that the algorithm A decides if a given word w belongs to L. Under that assumption, letting A always return true does not make sense because this algorithm could only decide the language that contains every possible word. This wouldn't be an algorithm for any other language.
While I was reading about lambda calculus, came across the word Lambda definability. Can someone please explain what that is as I couldn't find any good resources on that.
Thanks
More generally, there is a line of research seeking to characterize "lambda definability" over a broad class of languages. "lambda definability" itself is typically relative to a semantics of a language given in terms of sets. For a type T in our language, write |T| for its interpretation as a set. Now, take an element of |T| -- call it e. We want to know if there is a term in our language -- call it x : T (x of type T), such that |x| is e. If there is such a term, then we say that t is lambda-definable.
Now, in our perfect world, when we interpret a language into sets, we would like to say that the sets associated with each type are precisely those that contain the lambda-definable elements of that type and only the lambda-definable elements (completeness). It would also be nice, perhaps to say that we can provide an algorithm to determine if a claimed element of a set has an associated lambda term (decidability).
Now, often we don't just model into sets, but into other funny mathematical constructions. And we don't model just from the lambda calculus, but from other related systems such as Plotkin's PCF or the like. But the property under study is typically still called "lambda-definability".
After decades of research there are still many open problems and questions in this regard -- while certain lower-order terms have been shown to have decidable lambda-definability (the classic results involve terms up to second-order), many terms do not yield so easily. This paper ("The Undecidability of lambda-Definability" by Ralph Loader) gives an important such undecidability result and characterizes some consequences: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.36.6860
See the Church-Turing thesis, where lambda-definable functions (from Church) are those that give us "effectively computable" functions. Turing showed that programs implementable on a Turing machine are equivalent to lambda-definable functions.
May anyone give me an example how we can improve our code reusability using algebraic structures like groups, monoids and rings? (or how can i make use of these kind of structures in programming, knowing at least that i didn't learn all that theory in highschool for nothing).
I heard this is possible but i can't figure out a way applying them in programming and genereally applying hardcore mathematics in programming.
It is not really the mathematical stuff that helps as is the mathematical thinking. Abstraction is the key in programming. Transforming real live concepts into numbers and relations is what we do every day. Algebra is the mother of all, algebra is the set of rules that defines correctness, it is the highest level of abstraction, so, understanding algebra means you can think more clear, more faster, more efficient. Commencing from Sets theory to Category Theory, Domain Theory etc everything comes from practical challenges, abstraction and generalization requirements.
In common practice you will not need to actually know these, although if you are thinking of developing stuff like AI Agents, programming languages, fundamental concepts and tools then they are a must.
In functional programming, esp. Haskell, it's common to structure programs that transform states as monads. Doing so means you can reuse generic algorithms on monads in very different programs.
The C++ standard template library features the concept of a monoid. The idea is again that generic algorithms may require an operation to satisfies the axioms of monoids for their correctness.
E.g., if we can prove the type T we're operating on (numbers, string, whatever) is closed under the operation, we know we won't have to check for certain errors; we always get a valid T back. If we can prove that the operation is associative (x * (y * z) = (x * y) * z), then we can reuse the fork-join architecture; a simple but way of parallel programming implemented in various libraries.
Computer science seems to get a lot of milage out of category theory these days. You get monads, monoids, functors -- an entire bestiary of mathematical entities that are being used to improve code reusability, harnessing the abstraction of abstract mathematics.
Lists are free monoids with one generator, binary trees are groups. You have either the finite or infinite variant.
Starting points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_data_type
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-algebra
You may want to learn category theory, and the way category theory approaches algebraic structures: it is exactly the way functional programming languages approach data structures, at least shapewise.
Example: the type Tree A is
Tree A = () | Tree A | Tree A * Tree A
which reads as the existence of a isomorphism (*) (I set G = Tree A)
1 + G + G x G -> G
which is the same as a group structure
phi : 1 + G + G x G -> G
() € 1 -> e
x € G -> x^(-1)
(x, y) € G x G -> x * y
Indeed, binary trees can represent expressions, and they form an algebraic structure. An element of G reads as either the identity, an inverse of an element or the product of two elements. A binary tree is either a leaf, a single tree or a pair of trees. Note the similarity in shape.
(*) as well as a universal property, but they are two of them (finite trees or infinite lazy trees) so I won't dwelve into details.
As I had no idea this stuff existed in the computer science world, please disregard this answer ;)
I don't think the two fields (no pun intended) have any overlap. Rings/fields/groups deal with mathematical objects. Consider a part of the definition of a field:
For every a in F, there exists an element −a in F, such that a + (−a) = 0. Similarly, for any a in F other than 0, there exists an element a^−1 in F, such that a · a^−1 = 1. (The elements a + (−b) and a · b^−1 are also denoted a − b and a/b, respectively.) In other words, subtraction and division operations exist.
What the heck does this mean in terms of programming? I surely can't have an additive inverse of a list object in Python (well, I could just destroy the object, but that is like the multiplicative inverse. I guess you could get somewhere trying to define a Python-ring, but it just won't work out in the end). Don't even think about dividing lists...
As for code readability, I have absolutely no idea how this can even be applied, so this application is irrelevant.
This is my interpretation, but being a mathematics major probably makes me blind to other terminology from different fields (you know which one I'm talking about).
Monoids are ubiquitous in programming. In some programming languages, eg. Haskell, we can make monoids explicit http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/01/haskell-monoids-and-their-uses.html
Most mathematicians agree that:
eπi + 1 = 0
However, most floating point implementations disagree. How well can we settle this dispute?
I'm keen to hear about different languages and implementations, and various methods to make the result as close to zero as possible. Be creative!
It's not that most floating point implementations disagree, it's just that they cannot get the accuracy necessary to get a 100% answer. And the correct answer is that they can't.
PI is an infinite series of digits that nobody has been able to denote by anything other than a symbolic representation, and e^X is the same, and thus the only way to get to 100% accuracy is to go symbolic.
Here's a short list of implementations and languages I've tried. It's sorted by closeness to zero:
Scheme: (+ 1 (make-polar 1 (atan 0 -1)))
⇒ 0.0+1.2246063538223773e-16i (Chez Scheme, MIT Scheme)
⇒ 0.0+1.22460635382238e-16i (Guile)
⇒ 0.0+1.22464679914735e-16i (Chicken with numbers egg)
⇒ 0.0+1.2246467991473532e-16i (MzScheme, SISC, Gauche, Gambit)
⇒ 0.0+1.2246467991473533e-16i (SCM)
Common Lisp: (1+ (exp (complex 0 pi)))
⇒ #C(0.0L0 -5.0165576136843360246L-20) (CLISP)
⇒ #C(0.0d0 1.2246063538223773d-16) (CMUCL)
⇒ #C(0.0d0 1.2246467991473532d-16) (SBCL)
Perl: use Math::Complex; Math::Complex->emake(1, pi) + 1
⇒ 1.22464679914735e-16i
Python: from cmath import exp, pi; exp(complex(0, pi)) + 1
⇒ 1.2246467991473532e-16j (CPython)
Ruby: require 'complex'; Complex::polar(1, Math::PI) + 1
⇒ Complex(0.0, 1.22464679914735e-16) (MRI)
⇒ Complex(0.0, 1.2246467991473532e-16) (JRuby)
R: complex(argument = pi) + 1
⇒ 0+1.224606353822377e-16i
Is it possible to settle this dispute?
My first thought is to look to a symbolic language, like Maple. I don't think that counts as floating point though.
In fact, how does one represent i (or j for the engineers) in a conventional programming language?
Perhaps a better example is sin(π) = 0? (Or have I missed the point again?)
I agree with Ryan, you would need to move to another number representation system. The solution is outside the realm of floating point math because you need pi to represented as an infinitely long decimal so any limited precision scheme just isn't going to work (at least not without employing some kind of fudge-factor to make up the lost precision).
Your question seems a little odd to me, as you seem to be suggesting that the Floating Point math is implemented by the language. That's generally not true, as the FP math is done using a floating point processor in hardware. But software or hardware, floating point will always be inaccurate. That's just how floats work.
If you need better precision you need to use a different number representation. Just like if you're doing integer math on numbers that don't fit in an int or long. Some languages have libraries for that built in (I know java has BigInteger and BigDecimal), but you'd have to explicitly use those libraries instead of native types, and the performance would be (sometimes significantly) worse than if you used floats.
#Ryan Fox In fact, how does one represent i (or j for the engineers) in a conventional programming language?
Native complex data types are far from unknown. Fortran had it by the mid-sixties, and the OP exhibits a variety of other languages that support them in hist followup.
And complex numbers can be added to other languages as libraries (with operator overloading they even look just like native types in the code).
But unless you provide a special case for this problem, the "non-agreement" is just an expression of imprecise machine arithmetic, no? It's like complaining that
float r = 2/3;
float s = 3*r;
float t = s - 2;
ends with (t != 0) (At least if you use an dumb enough compiler)...
I had looooong coffee chats with my best pal talking about Irrational numbers and the diference between other numbers. Well, both of us agree in this different point of view:
Irrational numbers are relations, as functions, in a way, what way? Well, think about "if you want a perfect circle, give me a perfect pi", but circles are diferent to the other figures (4 sides, 5, 6... 100, 200) but... How many more sides do you have, more like a circle it look like. If you followed me so far, connecting all this ideas here is the pi formula:
So, pi is a function, but one that never ends! because of the ∞ parameter, but I like to think that you can have "instance" of pi, if you change the ∞ parameter for a very big Int, you will have a very big pi instance.
Same with e, give me a huge parameter, I will give you a huge e.
Putting all the ideas together:
As we have memory limitations, the language and libs provide to us huge instance of irrational numbers, in this case, pi and e, as final result, you will have long aproach to get 0, like the examples provided by #Chris Jester-Young
In fact, how does one represent i (or j for the engineers) in a conventional programming language?
In a language that doesn't have a native representation, it is usually added using OOP to create a Complex class to represent i and j, with operator overloading to properly deal with operations involving other Complex numbers and or other number primitives native to the language.
Eg: Complex.java, C++ < complex >
Numerical Analysis teaches us that you can't rely on the precise value of small differences between large numbers.
This doesn't just affect the equation in question here, but can bring instability to everything from solving a near-singular set of simultaneous equations, through finding the zeros of polynomials, to evaluating log(~1) or exp(~0) (I have even seen special functions for evaluating log(x+1) and (exp(x)-1) to get round this).
I would encourage you not to think in terms of zeroing the difference -- you can't -- but rather in doing the associated calculations in such a way as to ensure the minimum error.
I'm sorry, it's 43 years since I had this drummed into me at uni, and even if I could remember the references, I'm sure there's better stuff around now. I suggest this as a starting point.
If that sounds a bit patronising, I apologise. My "Numerical Analysis 101" was part of my Chemistry course, as there wasn't much CS in those days. I don't really have a feel for the place/importance numerical analysis has in a modern CS course.
It's a limitation of our current floating point computational architectures. Floating point arithmetic is only an approximation of numeric poles like e or pi (or anything beyond the precision your bits allow). I really enjoy these numbers because they defy classification, and appear to have greater entropy(?) than even primes, which are a canonical series. A ratio defy's numerical representation, sometimes simple things like that can blow a person's mind (I love it).
Luckily entire languages and libraries can be dedicated to precision trigonometric functions by using notational concepts (similar to those described by Lasse V. Karlsen ).
Consider a library/language that describes concepts like e and pi in a form that a machine can understand. Does a machine have any notion of what a perfect circle is? Probably not, but we can create an object - circle that satisfies all the known features we attribute to it (constant radius, relationship of radius to circumference is 2*pi*r = C). An object like pi is only described by the aforementioned ratio. r & C can be numeric objects described by whatever precision you want to give them. e can be defined "as the e is the unique real number such that the value of the derivative (slope of the tangent line) of the function f(x) = ex at the point x = 0 is exactly 1" from wikipedia.
Fun question.