pl/frap
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/achlipala/frap.git synced 2024-09-19 19:57:13 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

DataAbstraction chapter: proofreading

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Adam Chlipala 2017-02-20 17:06:06 -05:00
parent a20f757c17
commit 04492da28c
1 changed files with 3 additions and 2 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

5
frap_book.tex
View file

@ -600,8 +600,9 @@ As a result, client code (and its correctness proofs) can use this fancy code, e
Why did we need to go through the trouble of introducing custom equivalence relations?
Consider the following two queues.
Are they equal?
(We write $\pi_1$ for the function that projects out the first element of a pair.)
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mt{enqueue}(\mt{empty}, 2) &\stackrel{?}{=}& \mt{dequeue}(\mt{enqueue}(\mt{enqueue}(\mt{empty}, 1), 2))
\mt{enqueue}(\mt{empty}, 2) &\stackrel{?}{=}& \pi_1(\mt{dequeue}(\mt{enqueue}(\mt{enqueue}(\mt{empty}, 1), 2)))
\end{eqnarray*}
No, they aren't equal! The first expression reduces to $([2], [])$, while the second reduces to $([], [2])$.
@ -668,7 +669,7 @@ We implement our optimized set type like so, assuming an operation $\mt{fromRang
\mt{t} &=& \mt{Empty} \mid \mt{Range}(\mathbb N \times \mathbb N) \mid \mt{AdHoc}(\mt{t}_0) \\
\mt{empty} &=& \mt{Empty} \\
\mt{add}(\mt{Empty}, k) &=& \mt{Range}(k, k) \\
\mt{add}(\mt{Range}(n_1, n_2), k) &=& s\textrm{, when $n_1 \leq k \leq n_2$} \\
\mt{add}(\mt{Range}(n_1, n_2), k) &=& \mt{Range}(n_1, n_2)\textrm{, when $n_1 \leq k \leq n_2$} \\
\mt{add}(\mt{Range}(n_1, n_2), n_1-1) &=& \mt{Range}(n_1-1, n_2)\textrm{, when $n_1 \leq n_2$} \\
\mt{add}(\mt{Range}(n_1, n_2), n_2+1) &=& \mt{Range}(n_1, n_2+1)\textrm{, when $n_1 \leq n_2$} \\
\mt{add}(\mt{Range}(n_1, n_2), k) &=& \mt{AdHoc}(\mt{add}_0(\mt{fromRange}(n_1, n_2), k))\textrm{, otherwise} \\