Problem 3, hw 5

From: Brian Patton (bjp@bu.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 18:23:22 EDT 

Received: from acsn03.bu.edu (acsn03.bu.edu [128.197.159.63]) by cs.bu.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h95MO3bH022300 for <cs320@cs.bu.edu>; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:24:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BPATTON (bays200-0b01-dhcp173.bu.edu [168.122.253.173]) by acsn03.bu.edu ((8.9.3p2.buoit.v1.3)/BU_Server-1.3) with SMTP id SAA321712 for <cs320@cs.bu.edu>; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:23:24 -0400
Message-ID: <000501c38b8f$4a651ab0$adfd7aa8@BPATTON>
From: "Brian Patton" <bjp@bu.edu>
To: <cs320@cs.bu.edu>
Subject: Problem 3, hw 5
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:23:22 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Content-Length: 907
Status: RO
X-Mozilla-Status: 8009
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 3f7de3fb0000005b

Question for Problem #3... my rename function is allowing two a_0's to exist
in the same level
My question is:

    ; Is it necessary to avoid translating
    ; (+ (sigma i 1 2 i) (sigma j 2 7 j))
    ; TO
    ; (+ (sigma a_0 1 2 a_0) (sigma a_0 2 7 a_0)) ????

Should it be translated to (+ (sigma a_0 1 2 a_0) (sigma a_1 2 7 a_1))
instead, or does it matter since one is not embedded within the other?

Additionally, my understanding is that
(sigma i 1 2 (sigma i 4 7 (* 2 i)))
should be translated to
(sigma a_0 1 2 (sigma a_1 4 7 (* 2 a_1)))
because the reference to a_1 is embedded within the scope of a_0
and the idea is to make our substitution model easier to handle.

Please clarify, correct, criticize these ideas.
-Brian

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
BRIAN PATTON
http://people.bu.edu/bjp
http://people.bu.edu/reallife
BrianWa84@hotmail.com
Phone: 360.903.9003
AIM: BrianWA84

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 12:17:02 EST