On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 22:08 -0600, Jonathan Cast wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 03:50 +, ra...@msn.com wrote:
> > I am afraid I am still confused.
> >
> > > foo [] = ...
> > > foo (x:xs) = ...
> > > There is an implied:
> > > foo _|_ = _|_
> > > The right side cannot be anything but _|_. If
Am Donnerstag, 1. Januar 2009 04:50 schrieb ra...@msn.com:
> I am afraid I am still confused.
>
> > foo [] = ...
> > foo (x:xs) = ...
> > There is an implied:
> > foo _|_ = _|_
> > The right side cannot be anything but _|_. If it could, then that would
> > imply we could solve the halting problem:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 03:50 +, ra...@msn.com wrote:
> I am afraid I am still confused.
>
> > foo [] = ...
> > foo (x:xs) = ...
> > There is an implied:
> > foo _|_ = _|_
> > The right side cannot be anything but _|_. If it could, then that
> would imply we could solve the halting problem:
>
10:43 PM
To: Max.cs ; ra...@msn.com
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] bottom case in proof by induction
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Max.cs wrote:
thanks Luke,
so you mean the _|_ is necessary only when I have defined the pattern _|_
such as
foo [] = []
foo _|_ = _|_
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 02:16 +0100, Martijn van Steenbergen wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > First, by simple definition, id _|_ = _|_. Now let's consider foo _|_.
> > The Haskell semantics say that pattern matching on _|_ yields _|_, so
> > foo _|_ = _|_. So they are equivalent on _|_ also. Thu
Luke Palmer wrote:
First, by simple definition, id _|_ = _|_. Now let's consider foo _|_.
The Haskell semantics say that pattern matching on _|_ yields _|_, so
foo _|_ = _|_. So they are equivalent on _|_ also. Thus foo and id are
exactly the same function.
Would it in general also be inte
2008/12/31
> Dear all,
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> I am learning the Induction Proof over Haskell, I saw some proofs for the
> equivalence of two functions will have a case called 'bottom' but some of
> them do no have. What kind of situation we should also include the bottom
> case to the proof? H
Dear all,
Happy New Year!
I am learning the Induction Proof over Haskell, I saw some proofs for the
equivalence of two functions will have a case called 'bottom' but some of them
do no have. What kind of situation we should also include the bottom case to
the proof? How about the functions do
