|
|
last edited 11 years ago by test1 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | ||
Editor: hemmecke
Time: 2008/07/21 12:18:02 GMT-7 |
||
Note: |
changed: -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. Most CAS doesn't bother to define natural numbers via the Peano Axioms and then derive integers, for example, as an equivalence class of pairs of natural numbers so that (a, b) ~ (c, d) iff a + d = b + c. The question is whether a compiler could be smart enough to replace the definition via equivalence classes by an efficient representation that is, for example, used by GMP.
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.
Most CAS doesn't bother to define natural numbers via the Peano Axioms and then derive integers, for example, as an equivalence class of pairs of natural numbers so that
(a, b) ~ (c, d) iff a + d = b + c.
The question is whether a compiler could be smart enough to replace the definition via equivalence classes by an efficient representation that is, for example, used by GMP.
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]
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 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: 0.01 SEC.
(time taken in buildFunctor: 0)
;;; *** |Difference| REDEFINED
;;; *** |Difference| REDEFINED Time: 0 SEC.
Cumulative Statistics for Constructor Difference Time: 0.07 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"
axiomi:DIFF(CardinalNumber)
axiomi:=2
(1) |
axiomj:=i-4
(2) |
axiomk:=j+2
(3) |
axiomtest(k=0)
(4) |
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".