Skip to main content

Wish List

I've often had questions that I wanted answers to and didn't know who to ask.  Sometimes the questions are unanswerable unless some mighty alien intelligence were to come and give them to me.  Often times however, they are questions that should in principle be answerable.  Here are some questions from my current wish list.

1. Is it the case that the operational procedures that are used to "prove" queries in logic programming languages are exactly program extraction?  Am I missing something in this picture?

2. The Curry-Howard correspondence gives rise to a simple logic as the type calculus in functional programming languages.  In a language like Haskell this means that you write mostly in the functional programming language and most of logical implications are infered using Hindley-Milner type inference.  If we go to the other extreme we see things like Coq that allow us to do program extraction (extraction of a functional program) from a logical specification.  My question is if it is possible to do something more like what Haskell does.  Namely, allow the user to occasionally describe the functional program associated with the specification.  This would be like writing types and having program inference, rather than writing programs with type inference.

3. I've spent a lot of time thinking about transactional logic since it seems critical that we deal with schema evolution and  encorporation of new facts.  How exactly does the Curry-Howard correspondence relate to schema evolution?

4. In the same vein as 3.  Is it possible to have schema evolution of types in a functional programming language by using atomic transactional code insertion.  Clearly without some sort of atomism we will be able to arive at inconsistent/type-unsafe intermediate stages.

5.  What logical type calculus is sufficent to capture the Deutch-Josza algorithm if we assume that the usual matrix algebra is the appropriate combinitor calculus for implementing  quantum algorithms (ie. what is the explicit Curry-Howard correspondence).

Anyone sensing a theme here?  I'm totally in love with the CH correspondence.  If you don't know about it.  You aught to go look it up on wikipedia and read a bit!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decidable Equality in Agda

So I've been playing with typing various things in System-F which previously I had left with auxiliary well-formedness conditions. This includes substitutions and contexts, both of which are interesting to have well typed versions of. Since I've been learning Agda, it seemed sensible to carry out this work in that language, as there is nothing like a problem to help you learn a language.

In the course of proving properties, I ran into the age old problem of showing that equivalence is decidable between two objects. In this particular case, I need to be able to show the decidability of equality over types in System F in order to have formation rules for variable contexts. We'd like a context Γ to have (x:A) only if (x:B) does not occur in Γ when (A ≠ B). For us to have statements about whether two types are equal or not, we're going to need to be able to decide if that's true using a terminating procedure.

And so we arrive at our story. In Coq, equality is som…

Formalisation of Tables in a Dependent Language

I've had an idea kicking about in my head for a while of making query plans explicit in SQL in such a way that one can be assured that the query plan corresponds to the SQL statement desired. The idea is something like a Curry-Howard in a relational setting. One could infer the plan from the SQL, the SQL from the plan, or do a sort of "type-checking" to make sure that the plan corresponds to the SQL.

The devil is always in the details however. When I started looking at the primitives that I would need, it turns out that the low level table joining operations are actually not that far from primitive SQL statement themselves. I decided to go ahead and formalise some of what would be necessary in Agda in order get a better feel for the types of objects I would need and the laws which would be required to demonstrate that a plan corresponded with a statement.

Dependent types are very powerful and give you plenty of rope to hang yourself. It's always something of…

Plotkin, the LGG and the MGU

Legend has it that a million years ago Plotkin was talking to his professor Popplestone, who said that unification (finding the most general unifier or the MGU) might have an interesting dual, and that Plotkin should find it. It turns out that the dual *is* interesting and it is known as the Least General Generalisation (LGG). Plotkin apparently described both the LGG for terms, and for clauses. I say apparently because I can't find his paper on-line.

The LGG for clauses is more complicated so we'll get back to it after we look at the LGG of terms. We can see how the MGU is related to the LGG by looking at a couple of examples and the above image. We use the prolog convention that function symbols start with lower case, and variables start with uppercase. The image above is organised as a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph). DAGs are a very important structure in mathematics since DAGs are lattices.

Essentially what we have done is drawn an (incomplete) Hasse diagram f…