Re: cs 520 implementation

• Next message: Assaf Kfoury: "about course contents and pace of the lectures"
• Previous message: Assaf Kfoury: "Re: PA2 submission"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Return-Path: <kfoury@cs.bu.edu>
Received: from cs.bu.edu (cs [128.197.12.2]) by cs3.bu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i97NwIhw021512; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:58:18 -0400
Received: from cs.bu.edu (h000c41248e2b.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.34.20.189]) (authenticated bits=0) by cs.bu.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i97NwJdF002518; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:58:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4165D832.5010909@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:58:42 -0400
From: Assaf Kfoury <kfoury@cs.bu.edu>
Organization: Boston University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Yarom Gabay <yarom@cs.bu.edu>
CC: cs520 Course Account <cs520@cs.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: cs 520 implementation
References: <000a01c4abc5$09cf3ce0$0200a8c0@YaromAtHome>	 <41642DAB.4BC91485@cs.bu.edu> <1097184390.3020.19.camel@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1097184390.3020.19.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-HitLevel: xx
X-Spam-DCC: dmv.com: cs3.bu.edu 1181; Body=19 Fuz1=19 Fuz2=19
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on cs3.bu.edu
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 required=10.0 tests=AWL,RCVD_IN_DSBL, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY autolearn=no version=2.64
X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
Status: RO
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 411f69ec000010c6

You are absolutely right that under CBV the output is NOT (lambda x. x),
except that parentheses are missing in the output you mention. The
correct output is:

lambda y. (lambda x.x) ( (lambda x.x) y)

The way you wrote the output is equivalent to:

lambda y. lambda x. (x (lambda x. (x y)) )

and this is not correct.

Assaf

Yarom Gabay wrote:

>according to my understanding the following term (this is the term from
>class)
>
>(lambda x. lambda f. f x x) ( (lambda x. lambda y. x (x y)) (lambda
>x.x)) (lambda x. lambda y. x)
>
>under CBV should be evaluated to lambda y. lambda x.x (lambda x.x y)
>and not lambda x.x
>
>Because there is no evaluation under a lambda.
>
>
>
 

• Next message: Assaf Kfoury: "about course contents and pace of the lectures"
• Previous message: Assaf Kfoury: "Re: PA2 submission"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 17:00:43 EST