login  home  contents  what's new  discussion  bug reports     help  links  subscribe  changes  refresh  edit

Edit detail for SandBoxDefineInteger revision 3 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Editor: Bill Page
Time: 2008/07/21 09:58:18 GMT-7
Note: explications

changed:
-Why are PositiveInteger and NonNegativeInteger defined as SubDomains of Integer?
-Here is an (imperfect) example of defining Integers from a more primitive domain
-rather than the other way around.
-
-This definition was suggested by Ralf Hemmecke in discussions at ISSAC 2008.
Why are PositiveInteger and NonNegativeInteger defined as SubDomains
of Integer? Here is an (imperfect) example of defining Integers from
a more primitive domain rather than the other way around.

This definition (which can be found in many standard texts on formal
mathematics) was suggested by Ralf Hemmecke in discussions at ISSAC
2008 as an example of something simple that is not handled well by
any current computer algebra system.  But of course he is in no way
responsible for the quality (or lack of it -:) for my particular
attempt at implementing this below.

removed:
-
-The point of this construction is to illustrate several problems.
-One is to ask why the current generation of compilers in computer
-algebra systems such as Axiom, e.g. Spad and Aldor, are not able
-to automatically convert this mathematically correct specification
-to an efficient implementation. Another issue is why these languages
-do not have some built-in support for such common algebraic
-constructions as "taking a quotient". In particular, there seems
-to be no general way of defining a "canonical representation".

changed:
-i-4
j:=i-4
k:=j+2
test(k=0)

added:

The point of this construction is to illustrate several problems.

One such problem is that current generation of compilers in computer
algebra systems such as Axiom, specifically Spad and Aldor, are not
able to automatically convert this presumably mathematically correct
specification to an efficient implementation, e.g. signed integers.

Another issue is why these languages do not have some built-in
support for such common algebraic constructions as "taking a quotient".
In particular, there seems to be no general way of defining a
"canonical representation".


Why are PositiveInteger? and NonNegativeInteger? defined as SubDomains? of Integer? Here is an (imperfect) example of defining Integers from a more primitive domain rather than the other way around.

This definition (which can be found in many standard texts on formal mathematics) was suggested by Ralf Hemmecke in discussions at ISSAC 2008 as an example of something simple that is not handled well by any current computer algebra system. But of course he is in no way responsible for the quality (or lack of it -:) for my particular attempt at implementing this below.

First let's define a constructor name Difference. Like Fraction the representation will be pairs of some suitable type and equality will be defined by an equivalence relation on this representation. Integer then can be constructed as Difference(CardinalNumber) as a kind of algebraic "quotient".

spad
)abbrev domain DIFF Difference Difference(T:Join(AbelianMonoid,RetractableTo(NonNegativeInteger))): Join(AbelianMonoid, RetractableTo(NonNegativeInteger)) with _-:(%,%) -> % == add Rep == Record(neg:T, pos:T)
0 == per [0,0] 1 == per [0,1]
x+y == per [rep(x).neg+rep(y).neg, rep(x).pos+rep(y).pos] x-y == per [rep(x).neg+rep(y).pos, rep(x).pos+rep(y).neg] x=y == rep(x).neg+rep(y).pos = rep(x).pos+rep(y).neg
-- how to define this properly? coerce(x:%):OutputForm == rep(x)::OutputForm coerce(x:NonNegativeInteger):% == per [0,coerce(x)$T]
spad
   Compiling OpenAxiom source code from file 
      /var/zope2/var/LatexWiki/3168118417028783659-25px001.spad using 
      Spad compiler.
   DIFF abbreviates domain Difference 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   initializing NRLIB DIFF for Difference 
   compiling into NRLIB DIFF 
   Adding $ modemaps
   Adding T$ modemaps
   Adding T$ modemaps
****** Domain: T$ already in scope
   compiling local rep : % -> Record(neg: T$,pos: T$)
      DIFF;rep is replaced by G1392 
Time: 0.01 SEC.
compiling local per : Record(neg: T$,pos: T$) -> % DIFF;per is replaced by G1392 Time: 0 SEC.
compiling exported Zero : () -> % Time: 0 SEC.
compiling exported + : (%,%) -> % Time: 0 SEC.
compiling exported - : (%,%) -> % Time: 0 SEC.
Adding Boolean modemaps compiling exported = : (%,%) -> Boolean Time: 0.06 SEC.
Adding OutputForm modemaps compiling exported coerce : % -> OutputForm Time: 0 SEC.
Adding Integer modemaps Adding NonNegativeInteger modemaps compiling exported coerce : NonNegativeInteger -> % Time: 0 SEC.
(time taken in buildFunctor: 0)
;;; *** |Difference| REDEFINED
;;; *** |Difference| REDEFINED Time: 0.01 SEC.
Cumulative Statistics for Constructor Difference Time: 0.08 seconds
finalizing NRLIB DIFF Processing Difference for Browser database: --->-->Difference((- (% % %))): Not documented!!!! --->-->Difference(constructor): Not documented!!!! --->-->Difference(): Missing Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Difference is now explicitly exposed in frame initial Difference will be automatically loaded when needed from /var/zope2/var/LatexWiki/DIFF.NRLIB/code.o

Now use DIFF to define an "Integer"

axiom
i:DIFF(CardinalNumber)
Type: Void
axiom
i:=2
LatexWiki Image(1)
Type: Difference CardinalNumber?
axiom
j:=i-4
LatexWiki Image(2)
Type: Difference CardinalNumber?
axiom
k:=j+2
LatexWiki Image(3)
Type: Difference CardinalNumber?
axiom
test(k=0)
LatexWiki Image(4)
Type: Boolean

The point of this construction is to illustrate several problems.

One such problem is that current generation of compilers in computer algebra systems such as Axiom, specifically Spad and Aldor, are not able to automatically convert this presumably mathematically correct specification to an efficient implementation, e.g. signed integers.

Another issue is why these languages do not have some built-in support for such common algebraic constructions as "taking a quotient". In particular, there seems to be no general way of defining a "canonical representation".