Andrew Cooke | Contents | Latest | RSS | Twitter | Previous | Next


Welcome to my blog, which was once a mailing list of the same name and is still generated by mail. Please reply via the "comment" links.

Always interested in offers/projects/new ideas. Eclectic experience in fields like: numerical computing; Python web; Java enterprise; functional languages; GPGPU; SQL databases; etc. Based in Santiago, Chile; telecommute worldwide. CV; email.

Personal Projects

Lepl parser for Python.

Colorless Green.

Photography around Santiago.

SVG experiment.

Professional Portfolio

Calibration of seismometers.

Data access via web services.

Cache rewrite.

Extending OpenSSH.

C-ORM: docs, API.

Last 100 entries

[Link] Neat Python Exceptions; [Link] Fix for Windows 10 to Avoid Ads; [Link] Attacks on ZRTP; [Link] UK Jazz Invasion; [Review] Cuba; [Link] Aricle on Gender Reversal of US Presidential Debate; {OpenSuse] Fix for Network Offline in Updater Applet; [Link] Parkinson's Related to Gut Flora; Farellones Bike Park; [Meta] Tags; Update: Second Ride; Schwalbe Thunder Burt 2.1 v Continental X-King 2.4; Mountain Biking in Santiago; Books on Ethics; Security Fail from Command Driven Interface; Everything Old is New Again; Interesting Take on Trump's Lies; Chutney v6; References on Entropy; Amusing "Alexa.." broadcast; The Shame of Chile's Education System; Playing mp4 gifs in Firefox on Opensuses Leap 42.2; Concurrency at Microsoft; Globalisation: Uk -> Chile; OpenSuse 42.2 and Synaptics Touch-Pads; Even; Cherry Jam; Lebanese Writer Amin Maalouf; C++ - it's the language of the future; Learning From Trump; Chinese Writer Hu Fayun; And; Apricot Jam; Also; Excellent Article on USA Politics; Oh Metafilter; Prejudice Against The Rurals; Also, Zizek; Trump; Why Trump Won; Doxygen + Latex on CentOS 6; SMASH - Solve 5 Biggest Problems in Physics; Good article on racism, brexit, and social divides; Grandaddy are back!; Consciousness From Max Entropy; Democrats; Harvard Will Fix Black Poverty; Modelling Bicycle Wheels; Amusing Polling Outlier; If Labour keeps telling working class people...; Populism and Choice; Books on Defeat; Enrique Ferrari - Argentine Author; Transcript of German Scientists on Learning of Hiroshima; Calvert Journal; Owen Jones on Twitter; Possible Japanese Authors; Complex American Literature; Chutney v5; Weird Componentized Virus; Interesting Argentinian Author - Antonio Di Benedetto; Useful Thread on MetaPhysics; RAND on fighting online anarchy (2001); NSA Hacked; Very Good LRB Article on Brexit; Nussbaum on Anger; Tasting; Apple + Kiwi Jam; Hit Me; Sudoku - CSP + Chaos; Recycling Electronics In Santiago; Vector Displays in OpenGL; And Anti-Aliased; OpenGL - Render via Intermediate Texture; And Garmin Connect; Using Garmin Forerunner 230 With Linux; (Beating Dead Horse) StackOverflow; Current State of Justice in China; Axiom of Determinacy; Ewww; Fee Chaos Book; Course on Differential Geometry; Okay, but...; Sparse Matrices, Deep Learning; Sounds Bad; Applebaum Rape; Tomato Chutney v4; Have to add...; Culturally Liberal and Nothing More; Weird Finite / Infinite Result; Your diamond is a beaten up mess; Maths Books; Good Bike Route from Providencia / Las Condes to Panul; Iain Pears (Author of Complex Plots); Plum Jam; Excellent; More Recently; For a moment I forgot StackOverflow sucked; A Few Weeks On...; Chilean Book Recommendations; How To Write Shared Libraries

© 2006-2017 Andrew Cooke (site) / post authors (content).

TTFP Exercises

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:27:16 -0300 (CLST)

ere's my initial attempt at the first few exercises in TTFP (Type Theory
and Functional Programming; see posts at  Hopefully I'll keep
updating this thread as I get further through the book.

- for negation
! for bottom (the uspide down T)
So -X is equivalent to X => !

1.1 Prove transivity of implication

[A]1  A => B
------------ (=> E)
     B                B => C
---------------------------- (=> E)
          ------ (=> I1)
          A => C

((A => B) => (B => C)) => (A => C)

Note that it's OK to introduce extra propositions (like A above) at the
start, as long as you eliminate them later (this is what "elimination"

1.2 Prove ((A u B) => C) => ((A => C) n (B => C))

                         (A u B) => C
             ---------------------------------------------- (n I)
             (A u B) => C        n             (A u B) => C
[A]1            .                . [B]2            .
----- (u I)     .                . ----- (u I)     .
A u B           .                . A u B           .
------------------------- (=> E) . ------------------------- (=> E)
          C                      .           C
       ------ (=> I1)            .        ------ (=> I2)
       A => C                             B => C

So ((A u B) => C) => ((A => C) n (B => C))

1.3 Prove (A => (B => C)) => ((A n B) => C)

[A n B]1
-------- (n E x 2)
 B   A
 .   .
 .   .  (A => (B => C))
 .   ------------------ (=> E)
 .           B => C
 ------------------ (=> E)
    ------------ (=> I)
    (A n B) => C

1.4 Joke question?
[later] - book author (Simon Thompson) replied saying it was a mistake!

1.5 Prove (B u C) => -(-A n -B)

This looks so much like De Morgan's law I'm going to assume it's a typo
and instead prove (A u B) => -(-A n -B)

However, I can't find a solution (looks like it needs the excldued middle?)

1.6 (a) Prove ((A => B) n (A => -B)) => -A

 [A]1  A => B         [A]1  A => (B => !)
 ------------ (=> E)  ------------------- (=> E)
      B                      (B => !)
      ------------------------------- (=> E)
                  ------ (=> I1)
                  A => !

I'm not that sure about this because it might contradict (! E):
I think it doesn't because there's "more above" than just !.

Also, there are assumptions about how the "deduction process" corresponds
to a formula:
 - n being implicit between different "tracks" in the argument (OK, I
   think, since n appears to be associative and commutative).
 - vertical steps being equivalent to =>

(b) Prove (A n -A) => B

A  (A => !)
----------- (=> E)
    --- (! E)

Question 1.7

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:36:44 -0300 (CLST)

1.7 Show the equivalence of EM/DN/CC

I can't find a way to do this starting with the EM formula given and
generating the other expressions.  And I think I can explain why (see Note
at foot of this for a resolution of this problem):

The law of the excluded middle (Boolean logic; I'm not sure what the
difference is) asserts *two* things about the relationship betwen A and

 - exhaustive: A u -A is always true (EXH)
 - exclusive:  A n -A is always false (EXC)

Now, asusming that a true proposition is always valid, the EM formula can
be derived from EXH alone:

 ------ (EXH)
 A u -A

The other two relations, however, require EXC.

First, --A => A

Consider EM applied to -A and A (and commutative u):
  -A u --A = true
  -A u A = true

From EXH and EXC we can divide the universe into two mutually exclusive
regions, -A and --A.  Similarly for -A and A.  So A is identical to --A. 
So --A => A.

Second, classical contradiction

 [-A]  -A => B         [-A]  -A => -B
 ------------- (=> E)  --------------
       B                      -B
       ------------------------- (EXC)
             ----------- (=> I)
             -A => false
             ----------- (EXH)
              A => true

So in both cases EXC is required in the argument, but that doesn't appear in

 A u -A

which only requires EXH.

Note - looking at Wikipedia, it seems that EXC is the "law of
non-contradiction" (LNC).  See also EoP on Dialetheism -

So presumably intuitionistic logic includes EXC (LNC).  Hence the question.

For 1.8 I think I really need a more detailed intro to logic?  It seems
that there are a bunch of things (like LNC) that I'm not using.

Apparently 1.5 *is* possible.  Rats.

Question 1.7 (correction)

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:13:31 -0300 (CLST)

Looking again at my notes, the law of non-contradiction was already
present in the rules (I hesitate to say axioms - I need to go back and see
if any were derived) I had.  In particular (A n -A) => B (! E) seems to be

However, I am still unclear on how I can derive those as a simple process,
line by line, using that forumlation.

Attacking 1.5

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:18:01 -0300 (CLST)

I wrote the following to try clarify where I was.  I was also considering
posting it to lambda as a plea for help, but decided it was unsuitable.

I think that my problem is that I am missing an axiom of some kind.  I am
working through and you can
see my previous answers at 
Proofs are of the form

----------- (Reason)

And since part of the reason I'm interested in this is that I want to
understand exactly what axioms are assumed, I'm restricting myself to that
approach as much as possible.  Now I have the following transformations
available (ie they are either axiomatic or derived more or less directly
from axioms):

A B           A n B
----- (n I)   ----- (n E)
A n B         A

[A]            A  A => B
:              --------- (=> E)
B              B
------ (=> I)
A => B

A                     [A]    [B]
----- (u I)           :      :
A u B          A u B  C      C
               --------------- (u E)

-A  =  A => ! (defn)    !
(! is bottom)           - (! E / absurdity)

[A]  [A]         A  -A
:    :           ----- (- E)
B    -B          B
-------- (- I)

So, my basic problem is that I can't see a way to introduce all the
negation present in (A u B) => -(-A n -B)

I can find plenty of proofs of DeMorgan's theorem, but they assume
classical logic (ie they include the law of the excluded middle).  And the
author of TTFP assures me that this proof (in just the one direction)
doesn't require LEM.

As I said, I feel like I'm either missing an axiom or some assumption
(like "-" being distributive or something).  It's also possible I just
don't trust myself enough when manipulating expressions that include !. 
Is it really OK to have ! in the middle of a proof, draw any conclusion,
and for the proof as a whole to be valid?  Presumably ! cannot appear in
the initial assumptions, right?

Question 1.5 (partial)

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:40:02 -0300 (CLST)

Prove (A u B) => -(-A n -B)

Rather than derive this directly, it seems that a kind of "truth-table"
approach might work.  However, that raises a pile of questions.  Since
they seem like useful questions anyway, this post...

A   -(-A n -B)
-------------- (=> E)
   -(! n -B)
   --------- (n E)
    ------ (notation)
    ! => !

So assuming A gives something universally (redundantly?) true.  Same for B
and, therefore, for A u B.

Now, is this sufficient?  I can see these possible problems:

(a) The approach above is not constructive and relies on some kind of
"true" value.  However, it doesn't explicitly use the LEM (so it's not
obviously bad either).

(b) The inference from A and B to (A u B) is in words.  I can't see how to
structure the argument starting from (A u B), although I can imagine
writing the B case in parallel (but what then?).  Am I assuming (A n B) =>
(A u B)? Then I would have (A n B) => -(-A n -B) (but maybe that's OK -
see (d)).

(c) How freely can I use ! - is the inference (! n B) => ! OK?

(d) What about the case (-A n -B)?  That is missing from the implicit
"truth table" I had in mind with this approach.  But why do I need to show
this?  I have a gut feeling (no more) that is only necessary with the LEM.
 Certainly => means something weaker than "equivalence".

Question 1.5 (with help)

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:34:27 -0300 (CLST)

I ended up asking for help -

Here's the result:

[A u B]2     [-A n -B]1
              --   -- (n E)
              -A   -B
--------------------- (u E)
     -------------- (=> I1)
     (-A n -B) => !
--------------------- (=> I2)
(A u B) => -(-A n -B)

Which seems depressingly trivial in retrospect.

It's probably worth etching the following onto my forehead or something:

  In general, in constructive logic, work on your proof from
  the conclusion to the premises. Look at the main connective
  of your current goal. The introduction rule for the main
  connective should be the last rule you use. Now you have
  one ore more new goals that you need to prove, and possibly
  a few new premisses.

  When your goal has no connective, then you look at the main
  connectives of your current premisses, and use the
  elimination rules to try to prove your goal from them.

  - H. J. Sander Bruggink

Question 1.8

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:58:38 -0300 (CLST)

Prove ((A => B) => A) => A using LEM

Using this application of the LEM (X u -X) is "free"

[X => Y]1   X u -X
------------------ (=> E)
      Y u -X
-------------------- (=> I)
(X => Y) => (Y u -X)  (a)

(A => B) => A
-------------  (a, where X = (A => B), Y = A)
A u -(A => B)
-------------  (a, where X = A, Y = B)
A u -(B u -A)
-------------  (DeMorgan; exercise 1.5)
A u (-B n A)
------------  (n E)
  A u A

So ((A => B) => A) => A

This could be more explicit, I know.  Major thanks to the anonymous
comment on the discussion page at Wikipedia -

Question 1.8 (better reference)

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:03:04 -0300 (CLST)

Better URL (for the "talk"
page click tab at top of screen).

Questions 1.9, 1.10

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:34:02 -0300 (CLST)

1.9 "Between every distinct pair of numbers there is a number"

  A x,y . (x != y) E z . ((x < z) n (z < y))


(a) One-to-one function
  (A x . E y . (f(x) = y)) n (A y . E x . (f(x) = y))

(b) Onto function
  A y . E x . (f(x) = y)

(c) f respects (preserves?) the relation <
  A x,y . (f(x) < f(y) iff x < y)
  A x,y . ({(x < y) n (f(y) < f(y))} u -(x < y))

Automated Problem Solving

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:22:21 -0300 (CLST)

This may be relevant -

Questions 1.11, 1.12

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:59:26 -0300 (CLST)

[Correction to 10.10 (c):
  A x,y . ({(x < y) n (f(x) < f(y))} u {-(x < y) n -(f(x) < f(y))}) ]

10.11 In
  A x . {(x < y) n (A z . (y > z => E x . (x > z)))}
    1     1   f       3    f   3      2    2   3

  y is free (f)
  x is bound (twice, 1 and 2)
  z is bound (once, 3)

10.12 Rename z to y in
  A z . E y . (z < y n y < z)

y is already bound, so need to rename y to x (say):
  A z . E y . (z < y n y < z) [y/z]
    = A z . E y . (z < y n y < z) [x/y][y/z]
    = A z . E x . (z < x n x < z) [y/z]
    = A y . E x . (y < x n x < y)

Summary of New (Predicate) Rules

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:13:50 -0300 (CLST)

------- (A I) side condition: x not free in any assumption of B
A x . B

A x . B(x)
---------- (A E)
B(t)                               [B]
B(t)                     E x . B   C
---------- (E I)         ----------- (E I)
E x . B(x)               C

Correction and Clarification

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:49:28 -0300 (CLST)

Correction - last rule above is (E E) (ie existential elimintion).

Clarification - on page 25 the book says:

  If we adopt a backwards reading of the rule of existential
  elimination, then we see how to use an existential assumption.

  To use an existential assumption Ex.P(x) , use the instance
  P(x) and finally discharge this using the rule (E E).

What it's saying is: if you need to prove something with an existential
assumption, first start without it, using the unqualified formula.  Later,
introduce the existenctial assumption it as a *separate* assumption, via E
E, which eliminates the initial unqualified formula, leaving the qualified
one (which in turn, is used, typically by => I).

Question 1.13

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:06:38 -0300 (CLST)

[Note that "A" and "E" are "ForAll" and "Exists", so I'm rewriting
functions from the text with different letters identifying formulae to
avoid A]

Given the valid proof of Ey.Ax.B(x,y) => Ax.Ey.B(x,y):

[Ax.B(x,y)] (1)
----------- (A E)
 --------- (E I)
------------ (A I) (*)
Ax.Ey.B(x,y)          [Ey.Ax.B(x,y)] (2)
------------------------------------ (E E (1))
---------------------------- (=> I (2))
Ey.Ax.B(x,y) => Ax.Ey.B(x,y)

Note that at (*) x is not free in the assumptions (it is bound by the
for-all clause).

For the corresponding proof of Ax.Ey.B(x,y) => Ey.Ax.B(x,y:

[B(x,y)] (1)
--------- (A I !!!) (**)
Ax.B(x,y)               [Ax.Ey.B(x,y)] (2)
------------ (E I)      -------------- (A E)
Ey.Ax.B(x,y)               Ey.B(x,y)
------------------------------------ (E E (1))
---------------------------- (=> I (2))
Ax.Ey.B(x,y) => Ey.Ax.B(x,y)

the step (**) is invalid because x is free in the initial assumption. 
This is the "side condition" referenced in the question.

Comment on this post