(λx. λy. y x) (λx. y) to λz. z (λx. y)
It doesn't make sense to me.
- It's an information loss, because we don't know what z is.
- It conflicts with the discussion about normal forms, since then any expression can be transformed to another one just by calling it λ z. z.
But it is a very interesting topic, and I'm certainly learning from this page. -- forgotten gentleman
(λ x. f x) 3 is just the same as (λ y. f y) 3
Your example is moderately interesting, and requires also the use of beta conversion or substitution, which goes as follows:
(λx. λy. y x) (λx. y) = (λx.λz.z x) (λx. y) (by alpha conversion - do this first!) = (λz. z (λx.y)) by beta conversion (substitution of (λx. y) for x )
Does that make you happier? User talk:David Martland
This is taken from FOLDOC; I don't think it is correct. The motive ascribed to Church (and Kleene) is wrong: they wanted to formalize the notion of computability. Furthermore, the paragraph presents the project of the lambda calculus as a failure; indeed it was a smashing success: it solved the Entscheidungsproblem and defined computable function for the first time cleanly (as the article already explains). It is not that "Church couldn't see any way to get rid of it", but in fact he proved that "there is no way to get rid of it", thus solving the Entscheidungsproblem in the negative. AxelBoldt 08:51 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)
I did a little research and found an article by Henk Barendregt (one of the worlds leading experts on lambda calculus) titled The impact of the lambda calculus in logic and computer science that you can find at http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/barendregt97impact and there he says:
I've written the beginning of an article about Combinatory logic, a variation of lambda calculus that has only application, and no abstraction. It seems to me it should be linked from here, but I'm not sure what to say. -- Mark Jason Dominus
To do: De Bruijn discovered a version of the Lambda calculus that avoids the alpha-equivalence difficulties by eliminating all variable names. There should be a paragraph about that. I will write it if someone else doesn't get there first. Dominus 04:18 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)
The discussion of alpha-conversion is not quite correct. For example, it says
Here is a counterexample: Take V==x, W==y, and E==(x y). Then the definition above asserts that
since I have replaced "every free occurrence of x with y", as instructed. But the equivalence is wrong.
I would like to fix this, following the exposition in section 1.1 of Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism (http://www.folli.uva.nl/CD/1999/library/pdf/curry-howard.pdf) by Sørenson and Urzyczyn. If nobody objects, I will. As the same time I would add a section about the De Bruijn formulation, which avoids the α-reduction issue entirely. Dominus 00:17 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|