Comments on: Generatingfunctorology

By: natural health

natural health — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:15:19 +0000

I do believe all of the concepts you have introduced for your post. They’re very convincing and can definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for novices. May just you please extend them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.

By: Natural Remedies For Gout

Natural Remedies For Gout — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:58:08 +0000

I think i’ll have to read this post one more time, as i didn’t completey understand all the the content. Anyways thanks alot for posting it :)

By: *

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 06:16:35 +0000

Hello there, wonderful article!! I bought you actually bookmarked as their favorite. With thanks and greatest wishes

By: pozorvlak

pozorvlak — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:20:01 +0000

aed: it’s common in category theory to use + for coproduct, which in the category of sets is indeed disjoint union. If you allow a natural number n to be represented by the finite set {1, 2, … n}, then + becomes ordinary addition :-)

By: aed

aed — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:35:01 +0000

Oh — I think I should stop seeing “+” as addition, and more as algabraic union — the possible values of Maybe x are 1 or x. So generating fuctions enumerate out the return values of a function (the “clothesline” upon which we hang numbers), but also can be composed together and manipulated with finite calculus and such.

Ach! So confusing.

By: Edward Kmett

Edward Kmett — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:06:02 +0000

Well, D is affine, as well as being singular in the fashion described.

Also, I think some of the usual isomorphisms such as the x^2 -> 2*x^2/2 one break down for the same reason the connection between ~~a and a breaks down, because we are working in an intuitionistic setting.

(At least my hand-wavy attempts to try to realize negative values as continuations accepting a given value type seemed to run into that)

By: Dan P

Dan P — Sat, 17 May 2008 03:11:22 +0000

Ah…it’s called affine logic. I don’t know the terminology.

By: Edward Kmett

Edward Kmett — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:14:37 +0000

Hrmm. Just an observation:

If D^2 = 0, then given a functor F described by a generating function

F x = a_0 + a_1*x + a_2*x^2 + …

then

F D = a_0 + a_1*D

cuts off the series.

It also seems that D as a ’singleton pattern’ is affine (permits weakening), because nothing currently prevents you from ‘not using’ the D, as evidenced by the possibility of a_0 being non-zero.

By: Edward Kmett

Edward Kmett — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:45 +0000

Dan,

I love the notion of D as a singleton type.

I’ve been thinking about the idea of trying to represent the infinite cases using bivariate generating functions.

The idea would be that you ‘hang up on the number line’ quantities based on two parameters. One the number of traversals of the structure of size >= m that touch n values to give you an idea of the branching structure. Then clearly for n > m, the tail of the series = 0.

You then count the number of cases involved in using productive corecursion to visit n values in the structure rather than the number of distinct ways you can use well-founded recursion to build a structure of a given size.

I haven’t had time in the last couple of days to investigate the idea any further though.

[Edit: this doesn't appear to be sufficient and I haven't been able to find any good closed forms this way yet]

By: Edward Kmett

Edward Kmett — Thu, 15 May 2008 06:11:58 +0000

Ah, nice. My ‘naive encoding’ was apparently better than I thought =)

Currently mining the material written on species and what is in that Flajolet/Sedgewick book.

Awesome link, aed. Thanks!