Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?
From: |-|erc (h_at_r.c)
Date: 02/07/05
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: and who made god?"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: and who made god?"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:29:28 +1000
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> >
> > twice(twice((twice(twice())twice))) twice(twice(twice())) twice() = twice(twice(twice(twice())))
> >
> > + 3 1 = 4
> >
> > where twice(x y) = x(xy)
>
> Erm, if you're defining twice(x y), what is twice() and twice(x) ?
> Not to mention twice?
>
> If I define:
>
> a = twice()
> b = twice(a)
> c = twice(b)
>
> then the above expression breaks down into
>
> twice(twice((b twice))) c a = twice(c)
Its the prototypical high order function,
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/haskell-functions.php
Consider the following definitions:
> inc :: Int -> Int
> inc n = n+1
>
> twice :: (a -> a) -> a -> a
> twice f a = f (f a)
twice inc 0 =
inc (inc 0) =
inc 1 =
2
twice twice inc 0 =
((twice twice) inc) 0 =
((twice . twice) inc) 0 =
(twice (twice inc)) 0 =
(twice (inc . inc)) 0 =
(inc . inc . inc . inc) 0 =
(inc (inc (inc (inc 0)))) =
(inc (inc (inc 1))) =
(inc (inc 2)) =
(inc 3) =
4
twice twice twice inc 0 = ?
since twice is TM complete, some mathematicians consider the number 1 to be twice(),
and 2 to be twice(twice()), an actual successor function and no zero required!
Herc
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: and who made god?"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: and who made god?"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|