Whooops. Thanks for the correction.
On 3/20/07, Levent Erkok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/19/07, Nicolas Frisby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, but I believe the two are equipotent. This usage of believe is
one of those I think I remember reading it somewhere usages.
On 3/19/07, Henning
On 3/19/07, Nicolas Frisby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, but I believe the two are equipotent. This usage of believe is
one of those I think I remember reading it somewhere usages.
On 3/19/07, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
Bekic's
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
Bekic's lemma [1], allows us to transform nested fixed points into a
single fixed point, such as:
fix (\x - fix (\y - f (x, y))) = fix f where f :: (a, a) - a
The 'fix' on the right hand side is not the standard one (e.g.
Control.Monad.Fix), is
Nope, but I believe the two are equipotent. This usage of believe is
one of those I think I remember reading it somewhere usages.
On 3/19/07, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
Bekic's lemma [1], allows us to transform nested fixed points
Nicolas Frisby wrote:
My question is: Given products and a fixed point combinator, can any
pure expression be transformed into a corresponding expression that
has just a single use of fix?
If yes, has there been any usage of such a transformation, or is it just
crazy?
Yes.
One use is
Using a single fix sounds possible.
First transform your program (by lambda lifting) to a program with
only global definitions, and then tuple them up and and use fix.
The c with a hacek, č, is Unicode character 010D.
-- Lennart
On Mar 18, 2007, at 03:01 , Nicolas Frisby wrote:
Bekic's lemma [1], allows us to transform nested fixed points into a
single fixed point, such as:
fix (\x - fix (\y - f (x, y))) = fix f where f :: (a, a) - a
This depends on having true products, though I'm not exactly sure
what that means. Mutual recursion can also be described with
