Constructing List Homomorphisms from Proofs

Constructing List Homomorphisms from Proofs

Yun-Yan Chi Shin-Cheng Mu

IIS, Academia Sinica, Taiwan

September 17, 2012

Yun-Yan Chi, Shin-Cheng Mu APLAS 2011 1/ 25

Prelude
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

List Homomorphism

▸ A function h on lists is called a list homomorphism if it
satisﬁes
h (xs + ys) = h xs h ys,
+
for some associative operator ( )
▸ E.g. sum (xs + ys) = sum xs + sum ys
+


Prelude
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

List Homomorphism

▸ A function h on lists is called a list homomorphism if it
satisﬁes
h (xs + ys) = h xs h ys,
+
for some associative operator ( )
▸ E.g. sum (xs + ys) = sum xs + sum ys
+
▸ Potential chances of parallelisation
▸ compute h xs and h ys in parallel
▸ combine the results using ( )
▸ Can a list homomorphism be mechanically constructed?


Prelude
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

A clue

▸ The well-known third list-homomorphism theorem:
▸ h is a list homomorphism
▸ if h can be foldr (⊲) e and foldl(⊳) e
for some (⊲), (⊳) and e
▸ E.g.

sum ([3, 5, 7, 9]) = 3 + sum [5, 7, 9]
= sum [3, 5, 7] + 9
= sum [3, 5] + sum [7, 9]


Prelude
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

But, how?

▸ Plenty of previous work was devoted to the construction of
( ) from the definitions of (⊲) and (⊳)
▸ Practically, efforts are needed to prove
h = foldr (⊲) e = foldl (⊳) e
▸ This occurs often that one of (⊲) or (⊳) is picked as definition
of h, while the other is much harder to find


Prelude
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

But, how?

▸ We may have a good guess of ( ) by mixing (⊲) and (⊳)
▸ The proof of the correctness of ( ) is very similar to the proof
of h = foldr (⊲) e = foldl (⊳) e, which we have to provide
anyway
▸ Our idea: transform the proof of the correctness of ( ) from
the proof of foldr = foldl, after assembling a possible ( )


Prelude Fold
Preliminaries Tupling
The Way To Go Foldr-Fusion Law

Prelude

Preliminaries
Fold
Tupling
Foldr-Fusion Law

The Way To Go
Proof by Fusion
Proof Generalisation


Prelude Fold

Foldr
▸ A function h is a instance of foldr (⊲) e if h can be deﬁned as
▸ h [] = e
▸ h (x xs) = x ⊲ h xs
for some e and (⊲)
▸ E.g.

foldr (⊲) e xs
= foldr (⊲) e (x1 (x2 (x3 [ ])))
= x1 ⊲ foldr (⊲) e (x2 (x3 [ ]))
= ...
= x1 ⊲ (x2 ⊲ (x3 ⊲ e))


Prelude Fold

Foldl
▸ Symmetrically, h is a foldl(⊳) e if it can be deﬁned as
▸ h [] = e
▸ h (xs + [x]) = h xs ⊳ x,
+
for some (⊳) and e
▸ E.g.

foldl (⊳) e xs
= foldl (⊳) e ((([ ] + [x1 ]) + [x2 ]) + [x3 ])
+ + +
= foldl (⊳) e (([ ] + [x1 ]) + [x2 ]) ⊳ x3
+ +
= ...
= ((e ⊳ x1 ) ⊳ x2 ) ⊳ x3


Prelude Fold

Tupling

▸ Not all functions can be a fold
▸ Tupling:
for h, ﬁnd a k such that ⟨h, k⟩ is a fold
▸ ⟨h, k⟩ x = (h x, k x)


Prelude Fold

Foldr-Fusion Law

▸ One can fuse f and foldr into another foldr


Prelude Fold

Foldr-Fusion Law

▸ One can fuse f and foldr into another foldr

(f ○ foldr (⊲) e) xs
= (f ○ foldr (⊲) e) (x1 (x2 (x3 ... [])))
= f (x1 ⊲ (x2 ⊲ (x3 ⊲ ... ⊲ e)))
= { f (x ⊲ z) = x ⊕ f z }
x1 ⊕ (f (x2 ⊲ (x3 ⊲ ... ⊲ e)))
= ...
= x1 ⊕ (x2 ⊕ (x3 ⊕ ... ⊕ (f e)))
= foldr (⊕) (f e) xs


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

Return to our approach

▸ Since we try to transform the proof of
▸ h = foldr (⊲) e = foldl (⊳) e
to the proof of
▸ the correctness of ( ),
▸ we want to know how to
1. prove that h = foldr (⊲) e = foldl (⊳) e
2. prove that ( ) do deﬁne a list homomorphism
3. transform the former to the latter


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go


▸ Let h = foldr (⊲) e
▸ To prove that h = foldl (⊳) e, we have to show
▸ h[] = e
▸ h (xs + [z]) = h xs ⊳ z
+
▸ In point-free style: h ○ (+
+[z]) = (⊳ z) ○ h

h ○ (+
+[z])
= { foldr -fusion, since (+
+[z]) = foldr ( ) [z] }
foldr (⊲) (h [z])
= { foldr -fusion (backwards) }
(⊳ z) ○ foldr (⊲) e
= (⊳ z) ○ h


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go


▸ For the second foldr -fusion
▸ z ⊲e=e⊳z
▸ (x ⊲ y ) ⊳ z = x ⊲ (y ⊳ z) - the associativity of (⊲) and (⊳)

▸ We will have the proof of h = foldr (⊲) e = foldl (⊳) e
if we have the proof of above fusion conditions


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

h is list homomorphism

▸ To prove that h is a list homomorphism, we have to show
▸ h (xs + ys) = h xs
+ h ys
▸ In point-free style: h ○ (+
+ys) = ( h ys) ○ h

h ○ (+
+ys)
= { foldr -fusion, since (+
+ys) = foldr ( ) ys }
foldr (⊲) (h ys)
= { foldr -fusion (backwards) }
( h ys) ○ foldr (⊲) e
= ( h ys) ○ h


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

h is list homomorphism

▸ For the second foldr -fusion
▸ h ys = e h ys
▸ (x ⊲ y ) h ys = x ⊲ (y h ys)

▸ If we have the proof of those fusion conditions, we will have
the proof of ( ) do deﬁne a list homomorphism


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

Generalisation

▸ To transform the proof of
▸ h = foldr (⊲) e = foldl (⊳) e

to the proof of
▸ h (xs + ys) = h xs
+ h ys


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

Generalisation

▸ z ⊲e=e⊳z
▸ (x ⊲ y ) ⊳ z = x ⊲ (y ⊳ z)
to the proof of
▸ h ys = e h ys
▸ (x ⊲ y ) h ys = x ⊲ (y h ys)


Prelude
Proof by Fusion
Preliminaries
The Way To Go

Generalisation

▸ z ⊲e=e⊳z
▸ (x ⊲ y ) ⊳ z = x ⊲ (y ⊳ z)
to the proof of
▸ h ys = e h ys
▸ (x ⊲ y ) h ys = x ⊲ (y h ys)

▸ To come up with ( ) and its correctness proof
▸ Generalise the former proof to the latter by replacing the
occurrences of z in (⊳) by metavariables


Setup
Example: Steep
Proving foldr (⊲) e = foldl (⊳) e
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Example: Steep
Setup
Constructing ( )

Conclusions


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Steep
▸ A list of numbers is said to be steep if each number is larger
than the sum of the numbers to its right.
▸ E.g. steep [20, 10, 5, 2]


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Steep
▸ Can steep be a foldr ?


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Steep
▸ Can steep be a foldl ?


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Cap
▸ cap xs, upper-bound of value we can attach to the right of xs
▸ cap can be a foldr together with sum


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Cap
▸ cap xs, upper-bound of value we can attach to the right of xs
▸ cap can be a foldl


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Steep as Fold

▸ We can compute steep if we can compute cap
▸ ⟨cap, sum⟩ can be foldr (⊲) (∞, 0) and foldl (⊳) (∞, 0),
where
▸ x ⊲ (c2 , s2 ) = ((x − s2 ) ↓ c2 , x + s2 )
▸ (c1 , s1 ) ⊳ z = ((c1 − z) ↓ z, s1 + z)
▸ It is not so obvious that foldr = foldl


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Example: Steep
Setup
Constructing ( )

Conclusions


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Fusion Conditions

▸ z ⊲ (∞, 0) = (∞, 0) ⊳ z
▸ (x ⊲ y ) ⊳ z = x ⊲ (y ⊳ z)
▸ The former condition trivially holds:

z ⊲ (∞, 0)
= { deﬁnition of (⊲) }
((z − 0) ↓ ∞, z + 0)
= { arithmetics }
((∞ − z) ↓ z, 0 + z)
= { deﬁnition of (⊳) }
(∞, 0) ⊳ z.


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Proof of Associativity

(x ⊲ (c, s)) ⊳ z
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) ⊳ z
((((x − s) ↓ c) − z) ↓ z, x + s + z)
= { (−z) distributes over (↓) }
(((x − s − z) ↓ (c − z)) ↓ z, x + s + z)
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + z)) ↓ ((c − z) ↓ z), x + s + z)
x ⊲ ((c − z) ↓ z, s + z)
x ⊲ ((c, s) ⊳ z)


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Example: Steep
Setup
Constructing ( )

Conclusions


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

The Aim now is

1. Generalise the proof of
▸ (x ⊲ y ) ⊳ z = x ⊲ (y ⊳ z)
to a proof of
▸ (x ⊲ y ) (c2 , s2 ) = x ⊲ (y (c2 , s2 )).
2. Construct a deﬁnition of ( )


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Generalise The Proof
▸ Copy the proof of associativity
(x ⊲ (c, s)) ⊳ z
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) ⊳ z
((((x − s) ↓ c) − z) ↓ z, x + s + z)
= { -z distributes over (↓) }
(((x − s − z) ↓ (c − z)) ↓ z, x + s + z)
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + z)) ↓ ((c − z) ↓ z), x + s + z)
x ⊲ ((c − z) ↓ z, s + z)
x ⊲ ((c, s) ⊳ z)


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

▸ Generalise ⊳ z to (c2 , s2 )
(x ⊲ (c, s)) ⊳ z
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) ⊳ z
((((x − s) ↓ c) − z) ↓ z, x + s + z)
(((x − s − z) ↓ (c − z)) ↓ z, x + s + z)
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + z)) ↓ ((c − z) ↓ z), x + s + z)
x ⊲ ((c − z) ↓ z, s + z)
x ⊲ ((c, s) ⊳ z)


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

▸ Generalise ⊳ z to (c2 , s2 )
(x ⊲ (c, s)) (c2 , s2 )
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) (c2 , s2 )
= { deﬁnition of ( ) }
((((x − s) ↓ c) − z) ↓ z, x + s + z)
(((x − s − z) ↓ (c − z)) ↓ z, x + s + z)
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + z)) ↓ ((c − z) ↓ z), x + s + z)
x ⊲ ((c − z) ↓ z, s + z)
x ⊲ ((c, s) (c2 , s2 ))


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

▸ Replace z by metavariable Xi
(x ⊲ (c, s)) (c2 , s2 )
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) (c2 , s2 )
((((x − s) ↓ c) − z) ↓ z, x + s + z)
(((x − s − z) ↓ (c − z)) ↓ z, x + s + z)
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + z)) ↓ ((c − z) ↓ z), x + s + z)
x ⊲ ((c − z) ↓ z, s + z)
x ⊲ ((c, s) (c2 , s2 ))


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

▸ Replace z by metavariable Xi
(x ⊲ (c, s)) (c2 , s2 )
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) (c2 , s2 )
((((x − s) ↓ c) − X1 ) ↓ X2 , x + s + X3 )
= { -X1 distributes over (↓) }
(((x − s − X1 ) ↓ (c − X1 )) ↓ X2 , x + s + X3 )
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + X1 )) ↓ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 ), x + s + X3 )
x ⊲ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 , s + X1 )
x ⊲ ((c, s) (c2 , s2 ))


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

▸ (s + X1 ) and (s + X3 ) have to be the same term
(x ⊲ (c, s)) (c2 , s2 )
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) (c2 , s2 )
((((x − s) ↓ c) − X1 ) ↓ X2 , x + s + X3 )
(((x − s − X1 ) ↓ (c − X1 )) ↓ X2 , x + s + X3 )
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + X1 )) ↓ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 ), x + s + X3 )
x ⊲ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 , s + X1 )
x ⊲ ((c, s) (c2 , s2 ))


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

▸ (s + X1 ) and (s + X3 ) have to be the same term
(x ⊲ (c, s)) (c2 , s2 )
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) (c2 , s2 )
((((x − s) ↓ c) − X1 ) ↓ X2 , x + s + X1 )
(((x − s − X1 ) ↓ (c − X1 )) ↓ X2 , x + s + X1 )
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + X1 )) ↓ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 ), x + s + X1 )
x ⊲ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 , s + X1 )
x ⊲ ((c, s) (c2 , s2 ))


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

▸ Proof of (x ⊲ y ) (c2 , s2 ) = x ⊲ (y (c2 , s2 ))
(x ⊲ (c, s)) (c2 , s2 )
((x − s) ↓ c, x + s) (c2 , s2 )
((((x − s) ↓ c) − X1 ) ↓ X2 , x + s + X1 )
(((x − s − X1 ) ↓ (c − X1 )) ↓ X2 , x + s + X1 )
= { arithmetics }
(((x − (s + X1 )) ↓ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 ), x + s + X1 )
x ⊲ ((c − X1 ) ↓ X2 , s + X1 )
x ⊲ ((c, s) (c2 , s2 ))


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Reﬁning The ( )

▸ (c1 , s1 ) (c2 , s2 ) = ((c1 − X1 ) ↓ X2 , s1 + X1 )
▸ Satisﬁes that (c2 , s2 ) = (∞, 0) (c2 , s2 )

(c2 , s2 ) = ((∞ − X1 ) ↓ X2 , 0 + X1 )
≡ (c2 , s2 ) = (∞ ↓ X2 , X1 )
≡ (c2 , s2 ) = (X2 , X1 )


Setup
Example: Steep
Conclusions
Constructing ( )

Reﬁning The ( )

▸ (c1 , s1 ) (c2 , s2 ) = ((c1 − X1 ) ↓ X2 , s1 + X1 )
▸ Satisﬁes that (c2 , s2 ) = (∞, 0) (c2 , s2 )

(c2 , s2 ) = ((∞ − X1 ) ↓ X2 , 0 + X1 )
≡ (c2 , s2 ) = (∞ ↓ X2 , X1 )
≡ (c2 , s2 ) = (X2 , X1 )
▸ We have thus discovered that
▸ (c1 , s1 ) (c2 , s2 ) = ((c1 − s2 ) ↓ c2 , s1 + s2 )
▸ This ( ) has got to be correct, because we have the proof
already!


Example: Steep
Conclusions

Conclusions

▸ We have proposed and demonstrated a novel approach to
constructing ( ).
▸ Starting with a trivial generalisation of either (⊲) or (⊳), we
exploit the constraint enforced by the proof of associativity to
reﬁne ( ).
▸ Once we have constructed ( ), we have its correctness proof
too.


Constructing List Homomorphisms from Proofs

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (15)

Ähnlich wie Constructing List Homomorphisms from Proofs

Ähnlich wie Constructing List Homomorphisms from Proofs (17)

Mehr von Yun-Yan Chi

Mehr von Yun-Yan Chi (13)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Constructing List Homomorphisms from Proofs