<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mathematics and Computation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://math.andrej.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://math.andrej.com</link>
	<description>Mathematics for computers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:52:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2-beta2-18055</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A puzzle about typing</title>
		<link>http://math.andrej.com/2012/01/20/a-puzzle-about-typing/</link>
		<comments>http://math.andrej.com/2012/01/20/a-puzzle-about-typing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrej Bauer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Programming]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://math.andrej.com/?p=1109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>While making a comment on Stackoverflow I noticed something: suppose we have a term in the $\lambda$-calculus in which no abstracted variable is used more than once. For example, $\lambda a b c . (a b) (\lambda d. d c)$ is such a term, but $\lambda f . f (\lambda x . x x)$ is not because [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While making a comment on <a href="http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/9690/functions-that-typed-lambda-calculus-cannot-compute">Stackoverflow</a> I noticed something: suppose we have a term in the $\lambda$-calculus in which no abstracted variable is used more than once. For example, $\lambda a b c . (a b) (\lambda d. d c)$ is such a term, but $\lambda f . f (\lambda x . x x)$ is not because $x$ is used twice. If I am not mistaken, all such terms can be typed. For example:</p>
<pre class="brush: plain; gutter: false; title: ;">
# fun a b c -&gt; (a b) (fun d -&gt; d c) ;;
- : ('a -&gt; (('b -&gt; 'c) -&gt; 'c) -&gt; 'd) -&gt; 'a -&gt; 'b -&gt; 'd = &lt;fun&gt;

# fun a b c d e e' f g h i j k l m n o o' o'' o''' p q r r' s t u u' v w x y z -&gt;
    q u i c k b r o w n f o' x j u' m p s o'' v e r' t h e' l a z y d o''' g;;
  - : 'a -&gt; 'b -&gt; 'c -&gt; 'd -&gt; 'e -&gt; 'f -&gt; 'g -&gt; 'h -&gt; 'i -&gt; 'j -&gt;
    'k -&gt; 'l -&gt; 'm -&gt; 'n -&gt; 'o -&gt; 'p -&gt; 'q -&gt; 'r -&gt; 's -&gt; 't -&gt;
    ('u -&gt; 'j -&gt; 'c -&gt; 'l -&gt; 'b -&gt; 'v -&gt; 'p -&gt; 'w -&gt; 'o -&gt; 'g -&gt;
     'q -&gt; 'x -&gt; 'k -&gt; 'y -&gt; 'n -&gt; 't -&gt; 'z -&gt; 'r -&gt; 'a1 -&gt; 'e -&gt;
     'b1 -&gt; 'c1 -&gt; 'i -&gt; 'f -&gt; 'm -&gt; 'a -&gt; 'd1 -&gt; 'e1 -&gt; 'd -&gt; 's
     -&gt; 'h -&gt; 'f1) -&gt; 'v -&gt; 'b1 -&gt; 'z -&gt; 'c1 -&gt; 'u -&gt; 'y -&gt; 'a1
     -&gt; 'w -&gt; 'x -&gt; 'e1 -&gt; 'd1 -&gt; 'f1 = &lt;fun&gt;
</pre>
<p>What is the easiest way to see that this really is the case?</p>
<p>A related question is this (I am sure people have thought about it): how big can a type of a typeable $\lambda$-term be? For example, the Ackermann function can be typed as follows, although the type prevents it from doing the right thing in a typed setting:</p>
<pre class="brush: plain; gutter: false; title: ;">
# let one = fun f x -&gt; f x ;;
val one : ('a -&gt; 'b) -&gt; 'a -&gt; 'b =
# let suc = fun n f x -&gt; n f (f x) ;;
val suc : (('a -&gt; 'b) -&gt; 'b -&gt; 'c) -&gt; ('a -&gt; 'b) -&gt; 'a -&gt; 'c =
# let ack = fun m -&gt; m (fun f n -&gt; n f (f one)) suc ;;
val ack :
  ((((('a -&gt; 'b) -&gt; 'a -&gt; 'b) -&gt; 'c) -&gt;
   (((('a -&gt; 'b) -&gt; 'a -&gt; 'b) -&gt; 'c) -&gt; 'c -&gt; 'd) -&gt; 'd) -&gt;
   ((('e -&gt; 'f) -&gt; 'f -&gt; 'g) -&gt; ('e -&gt; 'f) -&gt; 'e -&gt; 'g) -&gt; 'h) -&gt; 'h = &lt;fun&gt;
</pre>
<p>That&#8217;s one mean type there! Can it be &#8220;explained&#8221;? Hmm, why <em>does</em> <code>ack</code> compute the Ackermann function in the untyped $\lambda$-calculus?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://math.andrej.com/2012/01/20/a-puzzle-about-typing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Bourbaki-Witt Principle in Toposes</title>
		<link>http://math.andrej.com/2012/01/04/on-the-bourbaki-witt-principle-in-toposes/</link>
		<comments>http://math.andrej.com/2012/01/04/on-the-bourbaki-witt-principle-in-toposes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:09:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrej Bauer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constructive math]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://math.andrej.com/?p=1104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>With Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine.</p>
<p>Abstract: The Bourbaki-Witt principle states that any progressive map on a chain-complete poset has a fixed point above every point. It is provable classically, but not intuitionistically. We study this and related principles in an intuitionistic setting. Among other things, we show that Bourbaki-Witt fails exactly when the trichotomous ordinals form a set, but does not [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With <a href="http://mathstat.dal.ca/~p.l.lumsdaine/">Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>The Bourbaki-Witt principle states that any progressive map on a chain-complete poset has a fixed point above every point. It is provable classically, but not intuitionistically. We study this and related principles in an intuitionistic setting. Among other things, we show that Bourbaki-Witt fails exactly when the trichotomous ordinals form a set, but does not imply that fixed points can always be found by transfinite iteration. Meanwhile, on the side of models, we see that the principle fails in realisability toposes, and does not hold in the free topos, but does hold in all cocomplete toposes.</p>
<p><strong>Download paper:</strong> <a href="/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bw.pdf">bw.pdf</a><br />
<strong>ArXiv version:</strong> <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0340v1">arXiv:1201.0340v1</a> [math.CT]</p>
<p>This paper is an extension of my previous paper on <a href="/2009/01/23/on-the-failure-of-fixed-point-theorems-for-chain-complete-lattices-in-the-effective-topos/">the Bourbaki-Witt and Knaster-Tarski fixed-point theorems in the effective topos</a> (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0068v1">arXiv:0911.0068v1</a>).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://math.andrej.com/2012/01/04/on-the-bourbaki-witt-principle-in-toposes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HoTT Equivalences</title>
		<link>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/07/hott-equivalences/</link>
		<comments>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/07/hott-equivalences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrej Bauer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Talks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Videos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://math.andrej.com/?p=1092</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>On December 6th 2011 I gave a talk about homotopy equivalences in the context of homotopy type theory at our seminar for foundations of mathematics and theoretical computer science. I discuss the differences and relations between isomorphism (in the sense of type theory), an adjoint equivalence, and a homotopy equivalence. Even though the talk itself was [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/33218969?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe></p>
<p>On December 6th 2011 I gave a talk about homotopy equivalences in the context of homotopy type theory at our seminar for foundations of mathematics and theoretical computer science. I discuss the differences and relations between isomorphism (in the sense of type theory), an adjoint equivalence, and a homotopy equivalence. Even though the talk itself was not super-well prepared, I hope the recording will be interesting to some people. I was going fairly slowly, so it should be possible to follow the talk. I apologize for such a long video, but I really did not see how to chop it up into smaller pieces. Also, I need to figure out why I cannot fast forward the video beyond what has been downloaded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/07/hott-equivalences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to make the &#8220;impossible&#8221; functionals run even faster</title>
		<link>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/06/how-to-make-the-impossible-functionals-run-even-faster/</link>
		<comments>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/06/how-to-make-the-impossible-functionals-run-even-faster/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:27:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrej Bauer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Talks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Videos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://math.andrej.com/?p=1086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>A talk given at &#8220;Mathematics, Algorithms and Proofs 2011&#8243; at the Lorentz Center in Leiden, the Netherlands. I explain how to use computational effects to speed up Martin Escardo&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/32811801?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe></p>
<p>A talk given at <a href="http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/467/info.php3?wsid=467">&#8220;Mathematics, Algorithms and Proofs 2011&#8243;</a> at the Lorentz Center in Leiden, the Netherlands. I explain how to use computational effects to speed up <a href="http://math.andrej.com/2007/09/28/seemingly-impossible-functional-programs/">Martin Escardo&#8217;s impossible functionals</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/06/how-to-make-the-impossible-functionals-run-even-faster/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Embedding the Baire space into natural numbers</title>
		<link>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/06/embedding-the-baire-space-into-natural-numbers/</link>
		<comments>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/06/embedding-the-baire-space-into-natural-numbers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrej Bauer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Talks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Videos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://math.andrej.com/?p=1081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>A talk given at &#8220;Computation with Infinite Data: Logical and Topological Foundations&#8221; Dagstuhl seminar 11411. I describe a realizability model based on infinite-time Turing machines in which it is possible to embed the Baire space (infinite sequences of numbers) into the space of numbers.</p>
<p>Also see the post Constructive gem: an injection from Baire space to natural [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/30368682?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="500" height="375" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe></p>
<p>A talk given at &#8220;Computation with Infinite Data: Logical and Topological Foundations&#8221; <a href="http://www.dagstuhl.de/11411">Dagstuhl seminar 11411</a>. I describe a realizability model based on infinite-time Turing machines in which it is possible to embed the Baire space (infinite sequences of numbers) into the space of numbers.</p>
<p>Also see the post <a href="http://math.andrej.com/2011/06/15/constructive-gem-an-injection-from-baire-space-to-natural-numbers/">Constructive gem: an injection from Baire space to natural numbers</a> for written notes on this topic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://math.andrej.com/2011/12/06/embedding-the-baire-space-into-natural-numbers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

