David Barbour wrote:
Alan Jeffrey wrote:
A function (f : Beh A -> Beh B) is causal whenever it respects =t, i.e.
(forall t . a =t b => f a =t f b).
Yes. Function outputs only depend on the past values of the input function.
Your solutions for double and weird are accurate. Double is lifting the
future at each instant into the present, which is obviously not causal. And
the `weird` function presumes you already have a obtained a complete view of
a behavior at each instant.
The `problem` such as it exists: you will be unable to causally construct
the argument to the `weird` function, except by modeling a nested/simulated
world (i.e. modeling one FRP system within another). This is not an
unrealistic endeavor, e.g. one might model the future position of a thrown
baseball in order to predict it. In this sense, `weird` is not weird.
I concur with that. The function
double :: Behavior a -> Behavior (Behavior a)
double x = const x
is not causal because it makes all future values of the behavior x
available "at once". However,
weird :: Behavior (Behavior a) -> Behavior a
weird = join . fmap (. (+1))
where join a t = a t t
is clearly causal as a composition of two causal functions. The point is
that the innermost behavior was already available "in full", so it's
perfectly possible to evaluate it at any time desired.
Of course, the function
double' x t = \t' -> if t' <= t then x t' else _|_
is causal.
Best regards,
Heinrich Apfelmus
--
http://apfelmus.nfshost.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
