Difference between revisions of "User:Gwern/kenn"
m (→FirstOrder Logic: oops) 
(today's svn pandoc) 

Line 1:  Line 1:  
<blockquote>Classical firstorder logic has the pleasant property that a formula can be reduced to an elegant ''implicative normal form'' through a series of syntactic simplifications. Using these transformations as a vehicle, this article demonstrates how to use Haskell’s type system, specifically a variation on Swierstra’s “Data Types à la Carte” method, to enforce the structural correctness property that these constructors are, in fact, eliminated by each stage of the transformation. 
<blockquote>Classical firstorder logic has the pleasant property that a formula can be reduced to an elegant ''implicative normal form'' through a series of syntactic simplifications. Using these transformations as a vehicle, this article demonstrates how to use Haskell’s type system, specifically a variation on Swierstra’s “Data Types à la Carte” method, to enforce the structural correctness property that these constructors are, in fact, eliminated by each stage of the transformation. 

</blockquote> 
</blockquote> 

+  <blockquote><pre>{# LANGUAGE RankNTypes,TypeOperators,PatternSignatures #} 

+  {# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances,IncoherentInstances #} 

+  {# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses,TypeSynonymInstances #} 

+  {# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts,FlexibleInstances #} 

−  
+  import Text.PrettyPrint.HughesPJ 

+  import Control.Monad.State 

+  import Prelude hiding (or,and,not)</pre> 

+  {LANGUAGE pragma and module imports} 

⚫  
== FirstOrder Logic == 
== FirstOrder Logic == 

Consider the optimistic statement “Every person has a heart.” If we were asked to write this formally in a logic or philosophy class, we might write the following formula of classical firstorder logic: 
Consider the optimistic statement “Every person has a heart.” If we were asked to write this formally in a logic or philosophy class, we might write the following formula of classical firstorder logic: 

−  <math>\forall p.\, Person(p) \Rightarrow \exists h.\, Heart(h) \wedge Has(p,h) </math> 
+  <math>\forall p.\, Person(p) \Rightarrow \exists h.\, Heart(h) \wedge Has(p,h) \\ </math> 
−  If asked to write the same property for testing by QuickCheck quickcheck 
+  If asked to write the same property for testing by QuickCheck {quickcheck}, we might instead produce this code: 
<pre> heartFact :: Person > Bool 
<pre> heartFact :: Person > Bool 

Line 15:  Line 23:  
where heart :: Person > Heart 
where heart :: Person > Heart 

...</pre> 
...</pre> 

−  These look rather different. Ignoring how some of the predicates moved into our types, there are two other transformations involved. First, the universally quantified <math>p</math> has been made a parameter, essentially making it a free variable of the formula. Second, the existentially quantified <math>h</math> has been replaced by a function heart that, for any person, returns their heart. How did we know to encode things this way? We have performed firstorder quantifier elimination in our heads! 
+  These look rather different. Ignoring how some of the predicates moved into our types, there are two other transformations involved. First, the universally quantified <math>p</math> has been made a parameter, essentially making it a free variable of the formula. Second, the existentially quantified <math>h</math> has been replaced by a function heart that, for any person, returns their heart. How did we know to encode things this way? We have performed firstorder quantifier elimination in our heads! 
This idea has an elegant instantiation for classical firstorder logic which (along with some other simple transformations) yields a useful normal form for any formula. This article is a tour of the normalization process, implemented in Haskell, using a number of Haskell programming tricks. We will begin with just a couple of formal definitions, but quickly move on to “all code, all the time.” 
This idea has an elegant instantiation for classical firstorder logic which (along with some other simple transformations) yields a useful normal form for any formula. This article is a tour of the normalization process, implemented in Haskell, using a number of Haskell programming tricks. We will begin with just a couple of formal definitions, but quickly move on to “all code, all the time.” 

−  First, we need the primitive set of terms <math>t</math>, which are either variables <math>x</math> or function symbols <math>f</math> applied to a list of terms (constants are functions of zero arguments). 
+  First, we need the primitive set of terms <math>t</math>, which are either variables <math>x</math> or function symbols <math>f</math> applied to a list of terms (constants are functions of zero arguments). <math>t ::= x ~\mid~ f(t_1, \cdots, t_n) 
+  </math> 

−  <blockquote>t ::= x f(t 1, , t n) 

⚫  
Next, we add atomic predicates <math>P</math> over terms, and the logical constructions to combine atomic predicates. Since we are talking about classical logic, many constructs have duals, so they are presented sidebyside. <math>\begin{array}{rclcl} \phi & ::= & P(t_1, 
Next, we add atomic predicates <math>P</math> over terms, and the logical constructions to combine atomic predicates. Since we are talking about classical logic, many constructs have duals, so they are presented sidebyside. <math>\begin{array}{rclcl} \phi & ::= & P(t_1, 

\cdots, t_n) \\ & \mid & \neg\phi \\ & \mid & \phi_1 \Rightarrow 
\cdots, t_n) \\ & \mid & \neg\phi \\ & \mid & \phi_1 \Rightarrow 

Line 33:  Line 39:  
<math>implicative~normal~f\!orm ~ ::= ~ \bigwedge \left[\bigwedge t^* \Rightarrow \bigvee t ^*\right]^* </math> 
<math>implicative~normal~f\!orm ~ ::= ~ \bigwedge \left[\bigwedge t^* \Rightarrow \bigvee t ^*\right]^* </math> 

−  The normal form may be very large compared to the input formula, but it is convenient for many purposes, such as using Prolog’s resolution procedure or an SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) solver. The following process for normalizing a formula is described by Russell and Norvig Russell2003 in seven steps: 
+  The normal form may be very large compared to the input formula, but it is convenient for many purposes, such as using Prolog’s resolution procedure or an SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) solver. The following process for normalizing a formula is described by Russell and Norvig {Russell2003} in seven steps: 
−  
−  <ol> 

−  <li><p>Eliminate implications.</p> 

−  
−  <p>Move negations inwards.</p> 

−  
−  <p>Standardize variable names.</p> 

−  
−  <p>Eliminate existential quantification, reaching Skolem normal form.</p> 

−  
−  <p>Eliminate universal quantification, reaching prenex formal form.</p> 

−  
−  <p>Distribute boolean connectives, reaching conjunctive normal form.</p> 

−  
−  <p>Gather negated atoms, reaching implicative normal form.</p></li></ol> 

+  # Eliminate implications. 

+  # Move negations inwards. 

+  # Standardize variable names. 

+  # Eliminate existential quantification, reaching Skolem normal form. 

+  # Eliminate universal quantification, reaching prenex formal form. 

+  # Distribute boolean connectives, reaching conjunctive normal form. 

+  # Gather negated atoms, reaching implicative normal form. 

Keeping in mind the pattern of systematically simplifying the syntax of a formula, let us consider some Haskell data structures for representing firstorder logic. 
Keeping in mind the pattern of systematically simplifying the syntax of a formula, let us consider some Haskell data structures for representing firstorder logic. 

Line 43:  Line 56:  
<pre>data Term = Const String [Term] 
<pre>data Term = Const String [Term] 

 Var String</pre> 
 Var String</pre> 

−  We will reuse the constructor names from FOL later, though, so this is not part of the code for the demonstration. 
+  We will reuse the constructor names from FOL later, though, so this is not part of the code for the demonstration. 
<pre>data FOL = Impl FOL FOL 
<pre>data FOL = Impl FOL FOL 

 Atom String [Term]  Not FOL 
 Atom String [Term]  Not FOL 

−   TT  FF 
+   TT  FF 
 Or FOL FOL  And FOL FOL 
 Or FOL FOL  And FOL FOL 

 Exists String FOL  Forall String FOL</pre> 
 Exists String FOL  Forall String FOL</pre> 

Line 58:  Line 71:  
</math> 
</math> 

−  <pre>foodFact = 
+  <pre>foodFact = 
−  (Impl 
+  (Impl 
(Exists "p" 
(Exists "p" 

(And (Atom "Person" [Var "p"]) 
(And (Atom "Person" [Var "p"]) 

Line 72:  Line 85:  
=== HigherOrder Abstract Syntax === 
=== HigherOrder Abstract Syntax === 

−  While the above encoding is natural to write down, it has drawbacks for actual work. The first thing to notice is that we are using the String type to represent variables, and may have to carefully manage scoping. But what do variables range over? Terms. And Haskell already has variables that range over the data type Term 
+  While the above encoding is natural to write down, it has drawbacks for actual work. The first thing to notice is that we are using the String type to represent variables, and may have to carefully manage scoping. But what do variables range over? Terms. And Haskell already has variables that range over the data type Term, so we can reuse Haskell’s implementation; this technique is known as higherorder abstract syntax (HOAS). 
<pre>data FOL = Impl FOL FOL 
<pre>data FOL = Impl FOL FOL 

 Atom String [Term]  Not FOL 
 Atom String [Term]  Not FOL 

−   TT  FF 
+   TT  FF 
 Or FOL FOL  And FOL FOL 
 Or FOL FOL  And FOL FOL 

 Exists (Term > FOL)  Forall (Term > FOL)</pre> 
 Exists (Term > FOL)  Forall (Term > FOL)</pre> 

−  In a HOAS encoding, the binder of the object language (the quantifiers of firstorder logic) are implemented using the binders of the metalanguage (Haskell). For example, where in the previous encoding we would represent <math>\exists x.\, P(x)</math> as Exists "x" (Const "P" [Var "x"]) we now represent it with Exists (  (Const "P" [x])) 
+  In a HOAS encoding, the binder of the object language (the quantifiers of firstorder logic) are implemented using the binders of the metalanguage (Haskell). For example, where in the previous encoding we would represent <math>\exists x.\, P(x)</math> as Exists "x" (Const "P" [Var "x"]) we now represent it with Exists ( > (Const "P" [x])). And our example becomes: 
−  <pre>foodFact = 
+  <pre>foodFact = 
−  (Impl 
+  (Impl 
(Exists $ \p > 
(Exists $ \p > 

(And (Atom "Person" [p]) 
(And (Atom "Person" [p]) 

Line 93:  Line 106:  
(And (Atom "Person" [p]) 
(And (Atom "Person" [p]) 

(Atom "Eats" [f]))))))))</pre> 
(Atom "Eats" [f]))))))))</pre> 

−  Since the variables p and f have taken the place of the String variable names, Haskell’s binding structure now ensures that we cannot construct a firstorder logic formula with unbound variables, unless we use the Var constructor, which is still present because we will need it later. Another important benefit is that the type now expresses that the variables range over the Term data type, while before it was up to us to properly interpret the String variable names. 
+  Since the variables p and f have taken the place of the String variable names, Haskell’s binding structure now ensures that we cannot construct a firstorder logic formula with unbound variables, unless we use the Var constructor, which is still present because we will need it later. Another important benefit is that the type now expresses that the variables range over the Term data type, while before it was up to us to properly interpret the String variable names. 
−  <blockquote>Modify the code of this article so that the Var constructor is not introduced until it is required in stage 5. 
+  <blockquote>Modify the code of this article so that the Var constructor is not introduced until it is required in stage 5. 
</blockquote> 
</blockquote> 

=== Data Types à la Carte === 
=== Data Types à la Carte === 

−  But even using this improved encoding, all our transformations will be of type FOL  FOL 
+  But even using this improved encoding, all our transformations will be of type FOL > FOL. Because this type does not express the structure of the computation very precisely, we must rely on human inspection to ensure that each stage is written correctly. More importantly, we are not making manifest the requirement of certain stages that the prior stages’ transformations have been performed. For example, our elimination of universal quantification is only a correct transformation when existentials have already been eliminated. A good goal for refining our type structure is to describe our data with types that reflect which connectives may be present. 
−  Swierstra proposes a technique dtalc whereby a variant data type is built up by mixing and matching constructors of different functors using their ''coproduct'' (:+:) 
+  Swierstra proposes a technique {dtalc} whereby a variant data type is built up by mixing and matching constructors of different functors using their ''coproduct'' (:+:), which is the “smallest” functor containing both of its arguments. 
<pre>data (f :+: g) a = Inl (f a)  Inr (g a) 
<pre>data (f :+: g) a = Inl (f a)  Inr (g a) 

Line 109:  Line 122:  
fmap f (Inl x) = Inl (fmap f x) 
fmap f (Inl x) = Inl (fmap f x) 

fmap f (Inr x) = Inr (fmap f x)</pre> 
fmap f (Inr x) = Inr (fmap f x)</pre> 

−  The :+: constructor is like Either but it operates on functors. This difference is crucial – if f and g represent two constructors that we wish to combine into a larger ''recursive'' data type, then the type parameter a represents the type of their subformulae. 
+  The :+: constructor is like Either but it operates on functors. This difference is crucial – if f and g represent two constructors that we wish to combine into a larger ''recursive'' data type, then the type parameter a represents the type of their subformulae. 
−  To work conveniently with coproducts, we define a type class : 
+  To work conveniently with coproducts, we define a type class :<: that implements subtyping by explicitly providing an injection from one of the constructors to the larger coproduct data type. There are some technical aspects to making sure current Haskell implementations can figure out the needed instances of :<:, but in this example we need only Swierstra’s original subsumption instances, found in Figure fig:Subsumption. For your own use of the technique, discussion on Phil Wadler’s blog {wadlerdtalc} and the HaskellCafe mailing list {haskellcafedtalc} may be helpful. 
+  <blockquote><pre>class (Functor sub, Functor sup) => sub :<: sup where 

+  inj :: sub a > sup a 

+  instance Functor f => (:<:) f f where 

+  inj = id 

+  instance (Functor f, Functor g) => (:<:) f (f :+: g) where 

+  inj = Inl 

+  
+  instance (Functor f, Functor g, Functor h, (f :<: g)) 

+  => (:<:) f (h :+: g) where 

+  inj = Inr . inj</pre> 

+  {Subsumption instances} (fig:Subsumption) 

+  </blockquote> 

If the above seems a bit abstract or confusing, it will become very clear when we put it into practice. Let us immediately do so by encoding the constructors of firstorder logic in this modular fashion. 
If the above seems a bit abstract or confusing, it will become very clear when we put it into practice. Let us immediately do so by encoding the constructors of firstorder logic in this modular fashion. 

Line 126:  Line 151:  
data Exists a = Exists (Term > a) 
data Exists a = Exists (Term > a) 

data Forall a = Forall (Term > a)</pre> 
data Forall a = Forall (Term > a)</pre> 

−  Each constructor is parameterized by a type a of subformulae; TT 
+  Each constructor is parameterized by a type a of subformulae; TT, FF, and Atom do not have any subformulae so they ignore their parameter. Logical operations such as And have two subformulae. Correspondingly, the And constructor takes two arguments of type a. 
−  The compound functor Input is now the specification of which constructors may appear in a firstorder logic formula. 
+  The compound functor Input is now the specification of which constructors may appear in a firstorder logic formula. 
−  <pre>type Input = TT :+: FF :+: Atom 
+  <pre>type Input = TT :+: FF :+: Atom 
−  :+: Not :+: Or :+: And :+: Impl 
+  :+: Not :+: Or :+: And :+: Impl 
−  :+: Exists :+: Forall 
+  :+: Exists :+: Forall</pre> 
−  +  The final step is to “tie the knot” with the following Formula data type, which generates a recursive formula over whatever constructors are present in its functor argument f. 

−  The final step is to “tie the knot” with the following Formula data type, which generates a recursive formula over whatever constructors are present in its functor argument f . 

−  <pre>data Formula f = In { out :: f (Formula f) } 
+  <pre>data Formula f = In { out :: f (Formula f) }</pre> 
−  If you have not seen this trick before, that definition may be hard to read and understand. Consider the types of In and out 
+  If you have not seen this trick before, that definition may be hard to read and understand. Consider the types of In and out. 
<pre>In :: f (Formula f) > Formula f 
<pre>In :: f (Formula f) > Formula f 

out :: Formula f > f (Formula f)</pre> 
out :: Formula f > f (Formula f)</pre> 

−  Observe that <math>In . out == out . In == id</math>. This pair of inverses allows us to “roll” and “unroll” one layer of a formula in order to operate on the outermost constructor. Haskell does this same thing when you patternmatch against “normal” recursive data types. Like Haskell, we want to hide this rolling and unrolling. To hide the rolling, we define some helper constructors, found in Figure fig:FOLboilerplate, that inject a constructor into an arbitrary supertype, and then apply In to yield a Formula 
+  Observe that <math>In . out == out . In == id</math>. This pair of inverses allows us to “roll” and “unroll” one layer of a formula in order to operate on the outermost constructor. Haskell does this same thing when you patternmatch against “normal” recursive data types. Like Haskell, we want to hide this rolling and unrolling. To hide the rolling, we define some helper constructors, found in Figure fig:FOLboilerplate, that inject a constructor into an arbitrary supertype, and then apply In to yield a Formula. 
−  To hide the unrolling, we use the fact that a fixpoint of a functor comes with a fold operation, or ''catamorphism'', which we will use to traverse a formula’s syntax. The function foldFormula takes as a parameter an ''algebra'' of the functor f 
+  To hide the unrolling, we use the fact that a fixpoint of a functor comes with a fold operation, or ''catamorphism'', which we will use to traverse a formula’s syntax. The function foldFormula takes as a parameter an ''algebra'' of the functor f. Intuitively, algebra tells us how to fold “one layer” of a formula, assuming all subformulae have already been processed. The fixpoint then provides the recursive structure of the computation once and for all. 
<pre>foldFormula :: Functor f => (f a > a) > Formula f > a 
<pre>foldFormula :: Functor f => (f a > a) > Formula f > a 

foldFormula algebra = algebra . fmap (foldFormula algebra) . out</pre> 
foldFormula algebra = algebra . fmap (foldFormula algebra) . out</pre> 

−  We are already reaping some of the benefit of our “à la carte” technique: The boilerplate Functor instances in Figure fig:FOLboilerplate are not much larger than the code of foldFormula would have been, and they are defined modularly! Unlike a monolithic foldFormula implementation, this one function will work no matter which constructors are present. If the definition of foldFormula is unfamiliar, it is worth imagining a Formula f flowing through the three stages: First, out unrolls the formula one layer, then fmap recursively folds over all the subformulae. Finally, the results of the recursion are combined by algebra 
+  We are already reaping some of the benefit of our “à la carte” technique: The boilerplate Functor instances in Figure fig:FOLboilerplate are not much larger than the code of foldFormula would have been, and they are defined modularly! Unlike a monolithic foldFormula implementation, this one function will work no matter which constructors are present. If the definition of foldFormula is unfamiliar, it is worth imagining a Formula f flowing through the three stages: First, out unrolls the formula one layer, then fmap recursively folds over all the subformulae. Finally, the results of the recursion are combined by algebra. 
+  <blockquote><pre>instance Functor TT where fmap _ _ = TT 

+  instance Functor FF where fmap _ _ = FF 

+  instance Functor Atom where fmap _ (Atom p ts) = Atom p ts 

+  instance Functor Not where fmap f (Not phi) = Not (f phi) 

+  instance Functor Or where fmap f (Or phi1 phi2) = Or (f phi1) (f phi2) 

+  instance Functor And where fmap f (And phi1 phi2) = And (f phi1) (f phi2) 

+  instance Functor Impl where fmap f (Impl phi1 phi2) = Impl (f phi1) (f phi2) 

+  instance Functor Forall where fmap f (Forall phi) = Forall (f . phi) 

+  instance Functor Exists where fmap f (Exists phi) = Exists (f . phi) 

+  inject :: (g :<: f) => g (Formula f) > Formula f 

+  inject = In . inj 

+  tt :: (TT :<: f) => Formula f 

+  tt = inject TT 

+  
+  ff :: (FF :<: f) => Formula f 

+  ff = inject FF 

+  
+  atom :: (Atom :<: f) => String > [Term] > Formula f 

+  atom p ts = inject (Atom p ts) 

+  
+  not :: (Not :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f 

+  not = inject . Not 

+  
+  or :: (Or :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f > Formula f 

+  or phi1 phi2 = inject (Or phi1 phi2) 

+  
+  and :: (And :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f > Formula f 

+  and phi1 phi2 = inject (And phi1 phi2) 

+  
+  impl :: (Impl :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f > Formula f 

+  impl phi1 phi2 = inject (Impl phi1 phi2) 

+  
+  forall :: (Forall :<: f) => (Term > Formula f) > Formula f 

+  forall = inject . Forall 

+  
+  exists :: (Exists :<: f) => (Term > Formula f) > Formula f 

+  exists = inject . Exists</pre> 

+  {Boilerplate for FirstOrder Logic Constructors} (fig:FOLboilerplate) 

+  </blockquote> 

Here is what our running example looks like with this encoding: 
Here is what our running example looks like with this encoding: 

Line 171:  Line 235:  
== Stage 1 – Eliminate Implications == 
== Stage 1 – Eliminate Implications == 

−  The first transformation is an easy one, in which we “desugar” <math>\phi_1 \Rightarrow \phi_2</math> into <math>\neg \phi_1 \vee \phi_2</math>. The highlevel overview is given by the type and body of elimImp 
+  The first transformation is an easy one, in which we “desugar” <math>\phi_1 \Rightarrow \phi_2</math> into <math>\neg \phi_1 \vee \phi_2</math>. The highlevel overview is given by the type and body of elimImp. 
<pre>type Stage1 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: Not :+: Or :+: And :+: Exists :+: Forall 
<pre>type Stage1 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: Not :+: Or :+: And :+: Exists :+: Forall 

Line 177:  Line 241:  
elimImp :: Formula Input > Formula Stage1 
elimImp :: Formula Input > Formula Stage1 

elimImp = foldFormula elimImpAlg</pre> 
elimImp = foldFormula elimImpAlg</pre> 

−  We take a formula containing all the constructors of firstorder logic, and return a formula built without use of Impl 
+  We take a formula containing all the constructors of firstorder logic, and return a formula built without use of Impl. The way that elimImp does this is by folding the algebras elimImpAlg for each constructor over the recursive structure of a formula. 
−  The function elimImpAlg we provide by making each constructor an instance of the ElimImp type class. This class specifies for a given constructor how to eliminate implications – for most constructors this is just the identity function, though we must rebuild an identical term to alter its type. Perhaps there is a way to use generic programming to eliminate the uninteresting cases. 
+  The function elimImpAlg we provide by making each constructor an instance of the ElimImp type class. This class specifies for a given constructor how to eliminate implications – for most constructors this is just the identity function, though we must rebuild an identical term to alter its type. Perhaps there is a way to use generic programming to eliminate the uninteresting cases. 
<pre>class Functor f => ElimImp f where 
<pre>class Functor f => ElimImp f where 

Line 194:  Line 258:  
instance ElimImp Exists where elimImpAlg (Exists phi) = exists phi 
instance ElimImp Exists where elimImpAlg (Exists phi) = exists phi 

instance ElimImp Forall where elimImpAlg (Forall phi) = forall phi</pre> 
instance ElimImp Forall where elimImpAlg (Forall phi) = forall phi</pre> 

−  We extend ElimImp in the natural way over coproducts, so that whenever all our constructors are members of the type class, then their coproduct is as well. 
+  We extend ElimImp in the natural way over coproducts, so that whenever all our constructors are members of the type class, then their coproduct is as well. 
<pre>instance (ElimImp f, ElimImp g) => ElimImp (f :+: g) where 
<pre>instance (ElimImp f, ElimImp g) => ElimImp (f :+: g) where 

Line 208:  Line 272:  
</math> 
</math> 

−  <blockquote>Design a solution where only the Impl case of elimImpAlg needs to be written. 
+  <blockquote>Design a solution where only the Impl case of elimImpAlg needs to be written. 
</blockquote> 
</blockquote> 

== Stage 2 – Move Negation Inwards == 
== Stage 2 – Move Negation Inwards == 

−  Now that implications are gone, we are left with entirely symmetrical constructions, and can always push negations in or out using duality: 
+  Now that implications are gone, we are left with entirely symmetrical constructions, and can always push negations in or out using duality: <math>\neg(\neg \phi) \Leftrightarrow \phi \\ 
+  \neg(\phi_1 \wedge \phi_2) \Leftrightarrow \neg\phi_1 \vee \neg\phi_2 \\ 

+  \neg(\phi_1 \vee \phi_2) \Leftrightarrow \neg\phi_1 \wedge \neg\phi_2 \\ 

+  \neg(\exists x.\, \phi) \Leftrightarrow \forall x.\, \neg\phi \\ 

+  \neg(\forall x.\, \phi) \Leftrightarrow \exists x.\, \neg\phi 

+  </math> 

⚫  
−  ( 1 2) 1 2 <br /> 

−  ( 1 2) 1 2 <br /> 

−  ( x. ) x. <br /> 

−  ( x. ) x. 

−  </blockquote> 

Our eventual goal is to move negation all the way inward so it is only applied to atomic predicates. To express this structure in our types, we define a new constructor for negated atomic predicates as well as the type for the output of Stage 2: 
Our eventual goal is to move negation all the way inward so it is only applied to atomic predicates. To express this structure in our types, we define a new constructor for negated atomic predicates as well as the type for the output of Stage 2: 

Line 229:  Line 287:  
natom p ts = inject (NAtom p ts) 
natom p ts = inject (NAtom p ts) 

−  type Stage2 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom 
+  type Stage2 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom 
−  :+: NAtom 
+  :+: NAtom 
−  :+: Or :+: And 
+  :+: Or :+: And 
:+: Exists :+: Forall</pre> 
:+: Exists :+: Forall</pre> 

One could imagine implementing duality with a multiparameter type class that records exactly the dual of each constructor, as 
One could imagine implementing duality with a multiparameter type class that records exactly the dual of each constructor, as 

Line 250:  Line 308:  
instance Dualize NAtom where dualAlg (NAtom p ts) = atom p ts 
instance Dualize NAtom where dualAlg (NAtom p ts) = atom p ts 

instance Dualize Or where dualAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = phi1 `and` phi2 
instance Dualize Or where dualAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = phi1 `and` phi2 

−  instance Dualize And where dualAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 `or` phi2 
+  instance Dualize And where dualAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 `or` phi2 
instance Dualize Exists where dualAlg (Exists phi) = forall phi 
instance Dualize Exists where dualAlg (Exists phi) = forall phi 

instance Dualize Forall where dualAlg (Forall phi) = exists phi 
instance Dualize Forall where dualAlg (Forall phi) = exists phi 

Line 257:  Line 315:  
dualAlg (Inl phi) = dualAlg phi 
dualAlg (Inl phi) = dualAlg phi 

dualAlg (Inr phi) = dualAlg phi</pre> 
dualAlg (Inr phi) = dualAlg phi</pre> 

−  Now perhaps the pattern of these transformations is becoming clear. It is remarkably painless, involving just a little type class syntax as overhead, to write these functor algebras. The definition of pushNotInwards is another straightforward fold, with a helper type class PushNot 
+  Now perhaps the pattern of these transformations is becoming clear. It is remarkably painless, involving just a little type class syntax as overhead, to write these functor algebras. The definition of pushNotInwards is another straightforward fold, with a helper type class PushNot. I’ve separated the instance for Not since it is the only one that does anything. 
<pre>class Functor f => PushNot f where 
<pre>class Functor f => PushNot f where 

Line 275:  Line 333:  
pushNotAlg (Inr phi) = pushNotAlg phi 
pushNotAlg (Inr phi) = pushNotAlg phi 

pushNotAlg (Inl phi) = pushNotAlg phi</pre> 
pushNotAlg (Inl phi) = pushNotAlg phi</pre> 

−  All we have to do now is define a fold that calls pushNotAlg 
+  All we have to do now is define a fold that calls pushNotAlg. 
<pre>pushNotInwards :: Formula Stage1 > Formula Stage2 
<pre>pushNotInwards :: Formula Stage1 > Formula Stage2 

Line 288:  Line 346:  
</math> 
</math> 

−  <blockquote>Instead of the NAtom constructor, define the composition of two functors f O g and rewrite Stage2 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: (Not O Atom) :+: Or :+: And :+: Exists :+: Forall 
+  <blockquote>Instead of the NAtom constructor, define the composition of two functors f `O` g and rewrite Stage2 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: (Not `O` Atom) :+: Or :+: And :+: Exists :+: Forall 
</blockquote> 
</blockquote> 

−  <blockquote>Encode a form of subtyping that can reason using commutativity of coproducts, and rewrite the Dualize algebra using a twoparameter Dual type class as described above. 
+  <blockquote>Encode a form of subtyping that can reason using commutativity of coproducts, and rewrite the Dualize algebra using a twoparameter Dual type class as described above. 
</blockquote> 
</blockquote> 

== Stage 3 – Standardize variable names == 
== Stage 3 – Standardize variable names == 

Line 298:  Line 356:  
== Stage 4 – Skolemization == 
== Stage 4 – Skolemization == 

−  It is interesting to arrive at the definition of Skolemization via the CurryHoward correspondence. You may be familiar with the idea that terms of type a  b are proofs of the proposition “<math>a</math> implies <math>b</math>”, assuming a and b are interpreted as propositions as well. This rests on a notion that a proof of a  b must be some process that can take a proof of a and generate a proof of b 
+  It is interesting to arrive at the definition of Skolemization via the CurryHoward correspondence. You may be familiar with the idea that terms of type a > b are proofs of the proposition “<math>a</math> implies <math>b</math>”, assuming a and b are interpreted as propositions as well. This rests on a notion that a proof of a > b must be some process that can take a proof of a and generate a proof of b, a very computational notion. Rephrasing the above, a function of type a > b is a guarantee that ''for all'' elements of type a, ''there exists'' a corresponding element of type b. So a function type expresses an alternation of a universal quantifier with an existential. We will use this to replace all the existential quantifiers with freshlygenerated functions. We can of course, pass a unit type to a function, or a tuple of many arguments, to have as many universal quantifiers as we like. 
Suppose we have <math>\forall x.\, \forall y.\, \exists z.\, P(x,y,z)</math>, then in general there may be many choices for <math>z</math>, given a particular <math>x</math> and <math>y</math>. By the axiom of choice, we can create a function <math>f</math> that associates each <math>\langle x,y \rangle</math> pair with a corresponding <math>z</math> arbitrarily, and then rewrite the above formula as <math>\forall x.\, 
Suppose we have <math>\forall x.\, \forall y.\, \exists z.\, P(x,y,z)</math>, then in general there may be many choices for <math>z</math>, given a particular <math>x</math> and <math>y</math>. By the axiom of choice, we can create a function <math>f</math> that associates each <math>\langle x,y \rangle</math> pair with a corresponding <math>z</math> arbitrarily, and then rewrite the above formula as <math>\forall x.\, 

Line 305:  Line 363:  
So we need to traverse the syntax tree gathering free variables and replacing existentially quantified variables with functions of a fresh name. Since we are eliminating a binding construct, we now need to reason about fresh unique names. 
So we need to traverse the syntax tree gathering free variables and replacing existentially quantified variables with functions of a fresh name. Since we are eliminating a binding construct, we now need to reason about fresh unique names. 

−  Today’s formulas are small, so let us use a naïve and wasteful splittable unique identifier supply. Our supply is an infinite binary tree, where moving left prepends a 0 to the bit representation of the current counter, while moving right prepends a 1 
+  Today’s formulas are small, so let us use a naïve and wasteful splittable unique identifier supply. Our supply is an infinite binary tree, where moving left prepends a 0 to the bit representation of the current counter, while moving right prepends a 1. Hence, the left and right subtrees are both infinite, nonoverlapping supplies of identifiers. The code for our unique identifier supplies is in Figure fig:unq. 
−  Launchbury and PeytonJones launchbury95state have discussed how to use the ST monad to implement a much more sophisticated and spaceefficient version of the same idea. 
+  Launchbury and PeytonJones {launchbury95state} have discussed how to use the ST monad to implement a much more sophisticated and spaceefficient version of the same idea. 
⚫  
+  <pre>type Unique = Int 

+  data UniqueSupply = UniqueSupply Unique UniqueSupply UniqueSupply 

+  initialUniqueSupply :: UniqueSupply 

+  initialUniqueSupply = genSupply 1 

+  where genSupply n = UniqueSupply n (genSupply (2*n)) 

+  (genSupply (2*n+1)) 

⚫  The helper algebra for Skolemization is more complex than before because a Formula Stage2 is not directly transformed into Formula Stage4 but into a function from its free variables to a new formula. On top of that, the final computation takes place in the Supply monad because of the need to generate fresh names for Skolem functions. Correspondingly, we choose the return type of the algebra to be [Term]  Supply (Formula Stage4) 

+  splitUniqueSupply :: UniqueSupply > (UniqueSupply, UniqueSupply) 

+  splitUniqueSupply (UniqueSupply _ l r) = (l,r) 

+  
+  getUnique :: UniqueSupply > (Unique, UniqueSupply) 

+  getUnique (UniqueSupply n l r) = (n,l) 

+  
+  type Supply a = State UniqueSupply a 

+  
+  fresh :: Supply Int 

+  fresh = do supply < get 

+  let (uniq,rest) = getUnique supply 

+  put rest 

+  return uniq 

+  
+  freshes :: Supply UniqueSupply 

+  freshes = do supply < get 

+  let (l,r) = splitUniqueSupply supply 

+  put r 

+  return l</pre> 

+  {Unique supplies} (fig:unq) 

+  </blockquote> 

⚫  The helper algebra for Skolemization is more complex than before because a Formula Stage2 is not directly transformed into Formula Stage4 but into a function from its free variables to a new formula. On top of that, the final computation takes place in the Supply monad because of the need to generate fresh names for Skolem functions. Correspondingly, we choose the return type of the algebra to be [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4). Thankfully, many instances are just boilerplate. 

<pre>type Stage4 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: NAtom :+: Or :+: And :+: Forall 
<pre>type Stage4 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: NAtom :+: Or :+: And :+: Forall 

class Functor f => Skolem f where 
class Functor f => Skolem f where 

−  skolemAlg :: f ([Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4)) 
+  skolemAlg :: f ([Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4)) 
> [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4) 
> [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4) 

−  instance Skolem TT where 
+  instance Skolem TT where 
skolemAlg TT xs = return tt 
skolemAlg TT xs = return tt 

−  instance Skolem FF where 
+  instance Skolem FF where 
skolemAlg FF xs = return ff 
skolemAlg FF xs = return ff 

−  instance Skolem Atom where 
+  instance Skolem Atom where 
skolemAlg (Atom p ts) xs = return (atom p ts) 
skolemAlg (Atom p ts) xs = return (atom p ts) 

−  instance Skolem NAtom where 
+  instance Skolem NAtom where 
skolemAlg (NAtom p ts) xs = return (natom p ts) 
skolemAlg (NAtom p ts) xs = return (natom p ts) 

−  instance Skolem Or where 
+  instance Skolem Or where 
skolemAlg (Or phi1 phi2) xs = liftM2 or (phi1 xs) (phi2 xs) 
skolemAlg (Or phi1 phi2) xs = liftM2 or (phi1 xs) (phi2 xs) 

−  instance Skolem And where 
+  instance Skolem And where 
skolemAlg (And phi1 phi2) xs = liftM2 and (phi1 xs) (phi2 xs) 
skolemAlg (And phi1 phi2) xs = liftM2 and (phi1 xs) (phi2 xs) 

Line 335:  Line 421:  
skolemAlg (Inr phi) = skolemAlg phi 
skolemAlg (Inr phi) = skolemAlg phi 

skolemAlg (Inl phi) = skolemAlg phi</pre> 
skolemAlg (Inl phi) = skolemAlg phi</pre> 

−  In the case for a universal quantifier <math>\forall x.\, \phi</math>, any existentials contained within <math>\phi</math> are parameterized by the variable <math>x</math>, so we add <math>x</math> to the list of free variables and Skolemize the body <math>\phi</math>. Implementing this in Haskell, the algebra instance must be a function from Forall (Term  [Term]  Supply (Formula Stage4)) to [Term]  Supply (Forall (Term  Formula Stage4)) 
+  In the case for a universal quantifier <math>\forall x.\, \phi</math>, any existentials contained within <math>\phi</math> are parameterized by the variable <math>x</math>, so we add <math>x</math> to the list of free variables and Skolemize the body <math>\phi</math>. Implementing this in Haskell, the algebra instance must be a function from Forall (Term > [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4)) to [Term] > Supply (Forall (Term > Formula Stage4)), which involves some juggling of the unique supply. 
−  <pre>instance Skolem Forall where 
+  <pre>instance Skolem Forall where 
−  skolemAlg (Forall phi) xs = 
+  skolemAlg (Forall phi) xs = 
do supply < freshes 
do supply < freshes 

return (forall $ \x > evalState (phi x (x:xs)) supply)</pre> 
return (forall $ \x > evalState (phi x (x:xs)) supply)</pre> 

−  From the recursive result phi 
+  From the recursive result phi, we need to construct a new body for the forall constructor that has a ''pure'' body: It must not run in the Supply monad. Yet the body must contain only names that do not conflict with those used in the rest of this fold. This is why we need a moderately complex UniqueSupply data structure: To break off a disjointyetinfinite supply for use by evalState in the body of a forall, restoring purity to the body by running the Supply computation to completion. 
−  Finally, the key instance for existentials is actually quite simple – just generate a fresh name and apply the Skolem function to all the arguments xs 
+  Finally, the key instance for existentials is actually quite simple – just generate a fresh name and apply the Skolem function to all the arguments xs. The application phi (Const name xs) is how we express replacement of the existentially bound term with Const name xs with higherorder abstract syntax. 
−  <pre>instance Skolem Exists where 
+  <pre>instance Skolem Exists where 
−  skolemAlg (Exists phi) xs = 
+  skolemAlg (Exists phi) xs = 
do uniq < fresh 
do uniq < fresh 

phi (Const ("Skol" ++ show uniq) xs) xs</pre> 
phi (Const ("Skol" ++ show uniq) xs) xs</pre> 

−  After folding the Skolemization algebra over a formula, Since we are assuming the formula is closed, we apply the result of folding skolemAlg to the empty list of free variables. Then the resulting Supply (Formula Stage4) computation is run to completion starting with the initialUniqueSupply 
+  After folding the Skolemization algebra over a formula, Since we are assuming the formula is closed, we apply the result of folding skolemAlg to the empty list of free variables. Then the resulting Supply (Formula Stage4) computation is run to completion starting with the initialUniqueSupply. 
<pre>skolemize :: Formula Stage2 > Formula Stage4 
<pre>skolemize :: Formula Stage2 > Formula Stage4 

Line 366:  Line 452:  
In the first line, <math>Skol_2</math> maps a person to a food they don’t eat. In the second line, <math>Skol_6</math> maps a food to a person who doesn’t eat it. 
In the first line, <math>Skol_2</math> maps a person to a food they don’t eat. In the second line, <math>Skol_6</math> maps a food to a person who doesn’t eat it. 

−  <blockquote>In the definition of skolemAlg 
+  <blockquote>In the definition of skolemAlg, we use liftM2 to thread the Supply monad through the boring cases, but the (>) [Term] monad is managed manually. Augment the (>) [Term] monad to handle the Forall and Exists cases, and then combine this monad with Supply using either StateT or the monad coproduct {monadcoproduct}. 
</blockquote> 
</blockquote> 

== Stage 5 – Prenex Normal Form == 
== Stage 5 – Prenex Normal Form == 

Line 375:  Line 461:  
prenex :: Formula Stage4 > Formula Stage5 
prenex :: Formula Stage4 > Formula Stage5 

−  prenex formula = evalState (foldFormula prenexAlg formula) 
+  prenex formula = evalState (foldFormula prenexAlg formula) 
initialUniqueSupply 
initialUniqueSupply 

Line 381:  Line 467:  
prenexAlg :: f (Supply (Formula Stage5)) > Supply (Formula Stage5) 
prenexAlg :: f (Supply (Formula Stage5)) > Supply (Formula Stage5) 

−  instance Prenex Forall where 
+  instance Prenex Forall where 
prenexAlg (Forall phi) = do uniq < fresh 
prenexAlg (Forall phi) = do uniq < fresh 

phi (Var ("x" ++ show uniq)) 
phi (Var ("x" ++ show uniq)) 

−  instance Prenex TT where 
+  instance Prenex TT where 
prenexAlg TT = return tt 
prenexAlg TT = return tt 

−  instance Prenex FF where 
+  instance Prenex FF where 
prenexAlg FF = return ff 
prenexAlg FF = return ff 

−  instance Prenex Atom where 
+  instance Prenex Atom where 
prenexAlg (Atom p ts) = return (atom p ts) 
prenexAlg (Atom p ts) = return (atom p ts) 

−  instance Prenex NAtom where 
+  instance Prenex NAtom where 
prenexAlg (NAtom p ts) = return (natom p ts) 
prenexAlg (NAtom p ts) = return (natom p ts) 

−  instance Prenex Or where 
+  instance Prenex Or where 
prenexAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = liftM2 or phi1 phi2 
prenexAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = liftM2 or phi1 phi2 

−  instance Prenex And where 
+  instance Prenex And where 
prenexAlg (And phi1 phi2) = liftM2 and phi1 phi2 
prenexAlg (And phi1 phi2) = liftM2 and phi1 phi2 

Line 403:  Line 489:  
Since prenex is just forgetting the binders, our example is mostly unchanged. 
Since prenex is just forgetting the binders, our example is mostly unchanged. 

−  <pre>*Main> texprint . prenex . skolemize . pushNotInwards 
+  <pre>*Main> texprint . prenex . skolemize . pushNotInwards 
. elimImp $ foodFact</pre> 
. elimImp $ foodFact</pre> 

<math>\begin{array}{ll} 
<math>\begin{array}{ll} 

Line 440:  Line 526:  
instance ToCNF NAtom where 
instance ToCNF NAtom where 

cnfAlg (NAtom p ts) = [[inj (NAtom p ts)]] 
cnfAlg (NAtom p ts) = [[inj (NAtom p ts)]] 

−  instance ToCNF And where 
+  instance ToCNF And where 
cnfAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 /\ phi2 
cnfAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 /\ phi2 

−  instance ToCNF Or where 
+  instance ToCNF Or where 
cnfAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = [ a \/ b  a < phi1, b < phi2 ] 
cnfAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = [ a \/ b  a < phi1, b < phi2 ] 

Line 450:  Line 536:  
And we can now watch our formula get really large and ugly, as our running example illustrates: 
And we can now watch our formula get really large and ugly, as our running example illustrates: 

−  <pre>*Main> texprint . cnf . prenex . skolemize 
+  <pre>*Main> texprint . cnf . prenex . skolemize 
. pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact</pre> 
. pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact</pre> 

<math>\begin{array}{ll} 
<math>\begin{array}{ll} 

Line 462:  Line 548:  
== Stage 7 – Implicative Normal Form == 
== Stage 7 – Implicative Normal Form == 

−  There is one more step we can take to remove all those aethetically displeasing negations in the CNF result above, reaching the particularly elegant ''implicative normal form''. We just gather all negated literals and push them to left of an implicit implication arrow, i.e. utilize this equivalence: 
+  There is one more step we can take to remove all those aethetically displeasing negations in the CNF result above, reaching the particularly elegant ''implicative normal form''. We just gather all negated literals and push them to left of an implicit implication arrow, i.e. utilize this equivalence: 
+  
+  <math>\left( \neg t_1 \vee \cdots \vee \neg t_m \vee t_{m+1} \vee \cdots \vee t_n \right) 

+  \Leftrightarrow 

+  \left( [t_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge t_m] \Rightarrow [t_{m+1} \vee \cdots \vee t_n] \right) 

+  </math> 

−  <blockquote>( t 1 t m t m+1 t n ) ( [t 1 t m] [t m+1 t n] ) 

−  </blockquote> 

<pre>data IClause = IClause  implicit implication 
<pre>data IClause = IClause  implicit implication 

[Atom ()]  implicit conjunction 
[Atom ()]  implicit conjunction 

Line 476:  Line 560:  
where toImpl disj = IClause [ Atom p ts  Inr (NAtom p ts) < disj ] 
where toImpl disj = IClause [ Atom p ts  Inr (NAtom p ts) < disj ] 

[ t  Inl t@(Atom _ _ ) < disj ]</pre> 
[ t  Inl t@(Atom _ _ ) < disj ]</pre> 

−  This form is especially useful for a resolution procedure because one always resolves a term on the left of an IClause with a term on the right. 
+  This form is especially useful for a resolution procedure because one always resolves a term on the left of an IClause with a term on the right. 
−  <pre>*Main> texprint . inf . cnf . prenex . skolemize 
+  <pre>*Main> texprint . inf . cnf . prenex . skolemize 
. pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact</pre> 
. pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact</pre> 

<math>\begin{array}{ll} 
<math>\begin{array}{ll} 

Line 490:  Line 574:  
== Voilà == 
== Voilà == 

−  Our running example has already been pushed all the way through, so now we can relax and enjoy writing normalize 
+  Our running example has already been pushed all the way through, so now we can relax and enjoy writing normalize. 
<pre>normalize :: Formula Input > INF 
<pre>normalize :: Formula Input > INF 

Line 497:  Line 581:  
== Remarks == 
== Remarks == 

−  Freely manipulating coproducts is a great way to make extensible data types as well as to express the structure of your data and computation. Though there is some syntactic overhead, it quickly becomes routine and readable. There does appear to be additional opportunity for scrapping boilerplate code. Ideally, we could elminate both the cases for uninteresting constructors and all the “glue” instances for the coproduct of two functors. Perhaps given more firstclass manipulation of type classes and instances typeclasses we could express that a coproduct has only one reasonable implementation for ''any'' type class that is an implemention of a functor algebra, and never write an algebra instance for (:+:) again. 
+  Freely manipulating coproducts is a great way to make extensible data types as well as to express the structure of your data and computation. Though there is some syntactic overhead, it quickly becomes routine and readable. There does appear to be additional opportunity for scrapping boilerplate code. Ideally, we could elminate both the cases for uninteresting constructors and all the “glue” instances for the coproduct of two functors. Perhaps given more firstclass manipulation of type classes and instances {typeclasses} we could express that a coproduct has only one reasonable implementation for ''any'' type class that is an implemention of a functor algebra, and never write an algebra instance for (:+:) again. 
−  Finally, Data Types à la Carte is not the only way to implement coproducts. In Objective Caml, polymorphic variants ocamlvariants serve a similar purpose, allowing free recombination of variant tags. The HList library hlist also provides an encoding of polymorphic variants in Haskell. 
+  Finally, Data Types à la Carte is not the only way to implement coproducts. In Objective Caml, polymorphic variants {ocamlvariants} serve a similar purpose, allowing free recombination of variant tags. The HList library {hlist} also provides an encoding of polymorphic variants in Haskell. 
== About the Author == 
== About the Author == 

Line 505:  Line 589:  
Kenneth Knowles is a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, studying type systems, concurrency, and parallel programming. He maintains a blog of mathematical musings in Haskell at http://kennknowles.com/blog 
Kenneth Knowles is a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, studying type systems, concurrency, and parallel programming. He maintains a blog of mathematical musings in Haskell at http://kennknowles.com/blog 

−  Kenn 
+  {Kenn} 
== Appendix – Printing == 
== Appendix – Printing == 

Line 520:  Line 604:  
texAlg :: f (Supply Doc) > Supply Doc 
texAlg :: f (Supply Doc) > Supply Doc 

−  instance TeXAlg Atom where 
+  instance TeXAlg Atom where 
texAlg (Atom p ts) = return . tex $ Const p ts 
texAlg (Atom p ts) = return . tex $ Const p ts 

−  instance TeXAlg NAtom where 
+  instance TeXAlg NAtom where 
texAlg (NAtom p ts) = textM "\\neg" <++> (return . tex $ Const p ts) 
texAlg (NAtom p ts) = textM "\\neg" <++> (return . tex $ Const p ts) 

−  instance TeXAlg TT where 
+  instance TeXAlg TT where 
texAlg _ = textM "TT" 
texAlg _ = textM "TT" 

Line 532:  Line 616:  
texAlg _ = textM "FF" 
texAlg _ = textM "FF" 

−  instance TeXAlg Not where 
+  instance TeXAlg Not where 
texAlg (Not a) = textM "\\neg" <> parensM a 
texAlg (Not a) = textM "\\neg" <> parensM a 

−  instance TeXAlg Or where 
+  instance TeXAlg Or where 
−  texAlg (Or a b) = parensM a 
+  texAlg (Or a b) = parensM a 
−  <++> textM "\\vee" 
+  <++> textM "\\vee" 
<++> parensM b 
<++> parensM b 

−  instance TeXAlg And where 
+  instance TeXAlg And where 
−  texAlg (And a b) = parensM a 
+  texAlg (And a b) = parensM a 
−  <++> textM "\\wedge" 
+  <++> textM "\\wedge" 
<++> parensM b 
<++> parensM b 

−  instance TeXAlg Impl where 
+  instance TeXAlg Impl where 
−  texAlg (Impl a b) = parensM a 
+  texAlg (Impl a b) = parensM a 
−  <++> textM "\\Rightarrow" 
+  <++> textM "\\Rightarrow" 
<++> parensM b 
<++> parensM b 

−  instance TeXAlg Forall where 
+  instance TeXAlg Forall where 
texAlg (Forall t) = do uniq < fresh 
texAlg (Forall t) = do uniq < fresh 

let name = "x_{" ++ show uniq ++ "}" 
let name = "x_{" ++ show uniq ++ "}" 

−  textM "\\forall" 
+  textM "\\forall" 
−  <++> textM name 
+  <++> textM name 
−  <> textM ".\\," 
+  <> textM ".\\," 
<++> parensM (t (Var name)) 
<++> parensM (t (Var name)) 

−  instance TeXAlg Exists where 
+  instance TeXAlg Exists where 
texAlg (Exists t) = do uniq < fresh 
texAlg (Exists t) = do uniq < fresh 

let name = "c_{" ++ show uniq ++ "}" 
let name = "c_{" ++ show uniq ++ "}" 

−  textM "\\exists" 
+  textM "\\exists" 
−  <++> textM name 
+  <++> textM name 
−  <> textM ".\\," 
+  <> textM ".\\," 
<++> parensM (t (Var name))</pre> 
<++> parensM (t (Var name))</pre> 

<pre>instance (TeXAlg f, TeXAlg g) => TeXAlg (f :+: g) where 
<pre>instance (TeXAlg f, TeXAlg g) => TeXAlg (f :+: g) where 

Line 573:  Line 657:  
instance TeXAlg f => TeX (Formula f) where 
instance TeXAlg f => TeX (Formula f) where 

−  tex formula = evalState 
+  tex formula = evalState 
−  (foldFormula texAlg formula) 
+  (foldFormula texAlg formula) 
initialUniqueSupply 
initialUniqueSupply 

instance (Functor f, TeXAlg f) => TeX (f ()) where 
instance (Functor f, TeXAlg f) => TeX (f ()) where 

−  tex x = evalState 
+  tex x = evalState 
−  (texAlg . fmap (const (textM "")) $ x) 
+  (texAlg . fmap (const (textM "")) $ x) 
initialUniqueSupply 
initialUniqueSupply 

instance TeX CNF where 
instance TeX CNF where 

−  tex formula = sepBy "\\wedge" 
+  tex formula = sepBy "\\wedge" 
$ fmap (parens . sepBy "\\vee" . fmap tex) formula 
$ fmap (parens . sepBy "\\vee" . fmap tex) formula 

Line 589:  Line 673:  
instance TeX IClause where 
instance TeX IClause where 

tex (IClause p q) = (brackets $ sepBy "\\wedge" $ fmap tex $ p) 
tex (IClause p q) = (brackets $ sepBy "\\wedge" $ fmap tex $ p) 

−  <+> text "\\Rightarrow" 
+  <+> text "\\Rightarrow" 
<+> (brackets $ sepBy "\\vee" $ fmap tex $ q) 
<+> (brackets $ sepBy "\\vee" $ fmap tex $ q) 

Revision as of 12:53, 7 September 2008
Classical firstorder logic has the pleasant property that a formula can be reduced to an elegant implicative normal form through a series of syntactic simplifications. Using these transformations as a vehicle, this article demonstrates how to use Haskell’s type system, specifically a variation on Swierstra’s “Data Types à la Carte” method, to enforce the structural correctness property that these constructors are, in fact, eliminated by each stage of the transformation.
{# LANGUAGE RankNTypes,TypeOperators,PatternSignatures #} {# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances,IncoherentInstances #} {# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses,TypeSynonymInstances #} {# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts,FlexibleInstances #} import Text.PrettyPrint.HughesPJ import Control.Monad.State import Prelude hiding (or,and,not){LANGUAGE pragma and module imports}
Contents
 1 FirstOrder Logic
 2 Stage 1 – Eliminate Implications
 3 Stage 2 – Move Negation Inwards
 4 Stage 3 – Standardize variable names
 5 Stage 4 – Skolemization
 6 Stage 5 – Prenex Normal Form
 7 Stage 6 – Conjunctive Normal Form
 8 Stage 7 – Implicative Normal Form
 9 Voilà
 10 Remarks
 11 About the Author
 12 Appendix – Printing
FirstOrder Logic
Consider the optimistic statement “Every person has a heart.” If we were asked to write this formally in a logic or philosophy class, we might write the following formula of classical firstorder logic:
Failed to parse (Missing <code>texvc</code> executable. Please see math/README to configure.): \forall p.\, Person(p) \Rightarrow \exists h.\, Heart(h) \wedge Has(p,h) \\
If asked to write the same property for testing by QuickCheck {quickcheck}, we might instead produce this code:
heartFact :: Person > Bool heartFact p = has p (heart p) where heart :: Person > Heart ...
These look rather different. Ignoring how some of the predicates moved into our types, there are two other transformations involved. First, the universally quantified has been made a parameter, essentially making it a free variable of the formula. Second, the existentially quantified has been replaced by a function heart that, for any person, returns their heart. How did we know to encode things this way? We have performed firstorder quantifier elimination in our heads!
This idea has an elegant instantiation for classical firstorder logic which (along with some other simple transformations) yields a useful normal form for any formula. This article is a tour of the normalization process, implemented in Haskell, using a number of Haskell programming tricks. We will begin with just a couple of formal definitions, but quickly move on to “all code, all the time.”
First, we need the primitive set of terms , which are either variables or function symbols applied to a list of terms (constants are functions of zero arguments).
Next, we add atomic predicates over terms, and the logical constructions to combine atomic predicates. Since we are talking about classical logic, many constructs have duals, so they are presented sidebyside.
We will successively convert a closed (no free variables) firstorder logic formula into a series of equivalent formulae, eliminating many of the above constructs. Eventually the result will be in implicative normal form, in which the placement of all the logical connectives is strictly dictated, such that it does not even require a recursive specification. Specifically, an implicative normal form is the conjunction of a set of implications, each of which has a conjunction of terms on the left and a disjunction of terms on the right:
The normal form may be very large compared to the input formula, but it is convenient for many purposes, such as using Prolog’s resolution procedure or an SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) solver. The following process for normalizing a formula is described by Russell and Norvig {Russell2003} in seven steps:
 Eliminate implications.
 Move negations inwards.
 Standardize variable names.
 Eliminate existential quantification, reaching Skolem normal form.
 Eliminate universal quantification, reaching prenex formal form.
 Distribute boolean connectives, reaching conjunctive normal form.
 Gather negated atoms, reaching implicative normal form.
Keeping in mind the pattern of systematically simplifying the syntax of a formula, let us consider some Haskell data structures for representing firstorder logic.
A Natural Encoding
Experienced Haskellers may translate the above definitions into the following Haskell data types immediately upon reading them:
data Term = Const String [Term]  Var String
We will reuse the constructor names from FOL later, though, so this is not part of the code for the demonstration.
data FOL = Impl FOL FOL  Atom String [Term]  Not FOL  TT  FF  Or FOL FOL  And FOL FOL  Exists String FOL  Forall String FOL
To make things more interesting, let us work with the formula representing the statement “If there is a person that eats every food, then there is no food that noone eats.”
foodFact = (Impl (Exists "p" (And (Atom "Person" [Var "p"]) (Forall "f" (Impl (Atom "Food" [Var "f"]) (Atom "Eats" [Var "p", Var "f"]))))) (Not (Exists "f" (And (Atom "Food" [Var "f"]) (Not (Exists "p" (And (Atom "Person" [Var "p"]) (Atom "Eats" [Var "f"]))))))))
HigherOrder Abstract Syntax
While the above encoding is natural to write down, it has drawbacks for actual work. The first thing to notice is that we are using the String type to represent variables, and may have to carefully manage scoping. But what do variables range over? Terms. And Haskell already has variables that range over the data type Term, so we can reuse Haskell’s implementation; this technique is known as higherorder abstract syntax (HOAS).
data FOL = Impl FOL FOL  Atom String [Term]  Not FOL  TT  FF  Or FOL FOL  And FOL FOL  Exists (Term > FOL)  Forall (Term > FOL)
In a HOAS encoding, the binder of the object language (the quantifiers of firstorder logic) are implemented using the binders of the metalanguage (Haskell). For example, where in the previous encoding we would represent as Exists "x" (Const "P" [Var "x"]) we now represent it with Exists ( > (Const "P" [x])). And our example becomes:
foodFact = (Impl (Exists $ \p > (And (Atom "Person" [p]) (Forall $ \f > (Impl (Atom "Food" [f]) (Atom "Eats" [p, f]))))) (Not (Exists $ \f > (And (Atom "Food" [f]) (Not (Exists $ \p > (And (Atom "Person" [p]) (Atom "Eats" [f]))))))))
Since the variables p and f have taken the place of the String variable names, Haskell’s binding structure now ensures that we cannot construct a firstorder logic formula with unbound variables, unless we use the Var constructor, which is still present because we will need it later. Another important benefit is that the type now expresses that the variables range over the Term data type, while before it was up to us to properly interpret the String variable names.
Modify the code of this article so that the Var constructor is not introduced until it is required in stage 5.
Data Types à la Carte
But even using this improved encoding, all our transformations will be of type FOL > FOL. Because this type does not express the structure of the computation very precisely, we must rely on human inspection to ensure that each stage is written correctly. More importantly, we are not making manifest the requirement of certain stages that the prior stages’ transformations have been performed. For example, our elimination of universal quantification is only a correct transformation when existentials have already been eliminated. A good goal for refining our type structure is to describe our data with types that reflect which connectives may be present.
Swierstra proposes a technique {dtalc} whereby a variant data type is built up by mixing and matching constructors of different functors using their coproduct (:+:), which is the “smallest” functor containing both of its arguments.
data (f :+: g) a = Inl (f a)  Inr (g a) infixr 6 :+: instance (Functor f, Functor g) => Functor (f :+: g) where fmap f (Inl x) = Inl (fmap f x) fmap f (Inr x) = Inr (fmap f x)
The :+: constructor is like Either but it operates on functors. This difference is crucial – if f and g represent two constructors that we wish to combine into a larger recursive data type, then the type parameter a represents the type of their subformulae.
To work conveniently with coproducts, we define a type class :<: that implements subtyping by explicitly providing an injection from one of the constructors to the larger coproduct data type. There are some technical aspects to making sure current Haskell implementations can figure out the needed instances of :<:, but in this example we need only Swierstra’s original subsumption instances, found in Figure fig:Subsumption. For your own use of the technique, discussion on Phil Wadler’s blog {wadlerdtalc} and the HaskellCafe mailing list {haskellcafedtalc} may be helpful.
class (Functor sub, Functor sup) => sub :<: sup where inj :: sub a > sup a instance Functor f => (:<:) f f where inj = id instance (Functor f, Functor g) => (:<:) f (f :+: g) where inj = Inl instance (Functor f, Functor g, Functor h, (f :<: g)) => (:<:) f (h :+: g) where inj = Inr . inj{Subsumption instances} (fig:Subsumption)
If the above seems a bit abstract or confusing, it will become very clear when we put it into practice. Let us immediately do so by encoding the constructors of firstorder logic in this modular fashion.
data TT a = TT data FF a = FF data Atom a = Atom String [Term] data Not a = Not a data Or a = Or a a data And a = And a a data Impl a = Impl a a data Exists a = Exists (Term > a) data Forall a = Forall (Term > a)
Each constructor is parameterized by a type a of subformulae; TT, FF, and Atom do not have any subformulae so they ignore their parameter. Logical operations such as And have two subformulae. Correspondingly, the And constructor takes two arguments of type a.
The compound functor Input is now the specification of which constructors may appear in a firstorder logic formula.
type Input = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: Not :+: Or :+: And :+: Impl :+: Exists :+: Forall
The final step is to “tie the knot” with the following Formula data type, which generates a recursive formula over whatever constructors are present in its functor argument f.
data Formula f = In { out :: f (Formula f) }
If you have not seen this trick before, that definition may be hard to read and understand. Consider the types of In and out.
In :: f (Formula f) > Formula f out :: Formula f > f (Formula f)
Observe that . This pair of inverses allows us to “roll” and “unroll” one layer of a formula in order to operate on the outermost constructor. Haskell does this same thing when you patternmatch against “normal” recursive data types. Like Haskell, we want to hide this rolling and unrolling. To hide the rolling, we define some helper constructors, found in Figure fig:FOLboilerplate, that inject a constructor into an arbitrary supertype, and then apply In to yield a Formula.
To hide the unrolling, we use the fact that a fixpoint of a functor comes with a fold operation, or catamorphism, which we will use to traverse a formula’s syntax. The function foldFormula takes as a parameter an algebra of the functor f. Intuitively, algebra tells us how to fold “one layer” of a formula, assuming all subformulae have already been processed. The fixpoint then provides the recursive structure of the computation once and for all.
foldFormula :: Functor f => (f a > a) > Formula f > a foldFormula algebra = algebra . fmap (foldFormula algebra) . out
We are already reaping some of the benefit of our “à la carte” technique: The boilerplate Functor instances in Figure fig:FOLboilerplate are not much larger than the code of foldFormula would have been, and they are defined modularly! Unlike a monolithic foldFormula implementation, this one function will work no matter which constructors are present. If the definition of foldFormula is unfamiliar, it is worth imagining a Formula f flowing through the three stages: First, out unrolls the formula one layer, then fmap recursively folds over all the subformulae. Finally, the results of the recursion are combined by algebra.
instance Functor TT where fmap _ _ = TT instance Functor FF where fmap _ _ = FF instance Functor Atom where fmap _ (Atom p ts) = Atom p ts instance Functor Not where fmap f (Not phi) = Not (f phi) instance Functor Or where fmap f (Or phi1 phi2) = Or (f phi1) (f phi2) instance Functor And where fmap f (And phi1 phi2) = And (f phi1) (f phi2) instance Functor Impl where fmap f (Impl phi1 phi2) = Impl (f phi1) (f phi2) instance Functor Forall where fmap f (Forall phi) = Forall (f . phi) instance Functor Exists where fmap f (Exists phi) = Exists (f . phi) inject :: (g :<: f) => g (Formula f) > Formula f inject = In . inj tt :: (TT :<: f) => Formula f tt = inject TT ff :: (FF :<: f) => Formula f ff = inject FF atom :: (Atom :<: f) => String > [Term] > Formula f atom p ts = inject (Atom p ts) not :: (Not :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f not = inject . Not or :: (Or :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f > Formula f or phi1 phi2 = inject (Or phi1 phi2) and :: (And :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f > Formula f and phi1 phi2 = inject (And phi1 phi2) impl :: (Impl :<: f) => Formula f > Formula f > Formula f impl phi1 phi2 = inject (Impl phi1 phi2) forall :: (Forall :<: f) => (Term > Formula f) > Formula f forall = inject . Forall exists :: (Exists :<: f) => (Term > Formula f) > Formula f exists = inject . Exists{Boilerplate for FirstOrder Logic Constructors} (fig:FOLboilerplate)
Here is what our running example looks like with this encoding:
foodFact :: Formula Input foodFact = (exists $ \p > atom "Person" [p] `and` (forall $ \f > atom "Food" [f] `impl` atom "Eats" [p,f])) `impl` (not (exists $ \f > atom "Food" [f] `and` (not (exists $ \p > atom "Person" [p] `and` atom "Eats" [p,f]))))
A TeX prettyprinter is included as an appendix to this article. To make things readable, though, I’ll doctor its output into a nice table, and remove extraneous parentheses. But I won’t rewrite the variable names, since variables and binding are a key aspect of managing formulae. By convention, the printer uses for existentially quantified variables and for universally quantified variables.
*Main> texprint foodFact
Stage 1 – Eliminate Implications
The first transformation is an easy one, in which we “desugar” into . The highlevel overview is given by the type and body of elimImp.
type Stage1 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: Not :+: Or :+: And :+: Exists :+: Forall elimImp :: Formula Input > Formula Stage1 elimImp = foldFormula elimImpAlg
We take a formula containing all the constructors of firstorder logic, and return a formula built without use of Impl. The way that elimImp does this is by folding the algebras elimImpAlg for each constructor over the recursive structure of a formula.
The function elimImpAlg we provide by making each constructor an instance of the ElimImp type class. This class specifies for a given constructor how to eliminate implications – for most constructors this is just the identity function, though we must rebuild an identical term to alter its type. Perhaps there is a way to use generic programming to eliminate the uninteresting cases.
class Functor f => ElimImp f where elimImpAlg :: f (Formula Stage1) > Formula Stage1 instance ElimImp Impl where elimImpAlg (Impl phi1 phi2) = (not phi1) `or` phi2 instance ElimImp TT where elimImpAlg TT = tt instance ElimImp FF where elimImpAlg FF = ff instance ElimImp Atom where elimImpAlg (Atom p ts) = atom p ts instance ElimImp Not where elimImpAlg (Not phi) = not phi instance ElimImp Or where elimImpAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = phi1 `or` phi2 instance ElimImp And where elimImpAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 `and` phi2 instance ElimImp Exists where elimImpAlg (Exists phi) = exists phi instance ElimImp Forall where elimImpAlg (Forall phi) = forall phi
We extend ElimImp in the natural way over coproducts, so that whenever all our constructors are members of the type class, then their coproduct is as well.
instance (ElimImp f, ElimImp g) => ElimImp (f :+: g) where elimImpAlg (Inr phi) = elimImpAlg phi elimImpAlg (Inl phi) = elimImpAlg phi
Our running example is now
*Main> texprint . elimImp $ foodFact
Design a solution where only the Impl case of elimImpAlg needs to be written.
Stage 2 – Move Negation Inwards
Now that implications are gone, we are left with entirely symmetrical constructions, and can always push negations in or out using duality: Failed to parse (Missing <code>texvc</code> executable. Please see math/README to configure.): \neg(\neg \phi) \Leftrightarrow \phi \\ \neg(\phi_1 \wedge \phi_2) \Leftrightarrow \neg\phi_1 \vee \neg\phi_2 \\ \neg(\phi_1 \vee \phi_2) \Leftrightarrow \neg\phi_1 \wedge \neg\phi_2 \\ \neg(\exists x.\, \phi) \Leftrightarrow \forall x.\, \neg\phi \\ \neg(\forall x.\, \phi) \Leftrightarrow \exists x.\, \neg\phi
Our eventual goal is to move negation all the way inward so it is only applied to atomic predicates. To express this structure in our types, we define a new constructor for negated atomic predicates as well as the type for the output of Stage 2:
data NAtom a = NAtom String [Term] instance Functor NAtom where fmap f (NAtom p ts) = NAtom p ts natom :: (NAtom :<: f) => String > [Term] > Formula f natom p ts = inject (NAtom p ts) type Stage2 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: NAtom :+: Or :+: And :+: Exists :+: Forall
One could imagine implementing duality with a multiparameter type class that records exactly the dual of each constructor, as
class (Functor f, Functor g) => Dual f g where dual :: f a > g a
Unfortunately, this leads to a situation where our subtyping must use the commutativity of coproducts, which it is incapable of doing as written. For this article, let us just define an algebra to dualize a whole formula at a time.
dualize :: Formula Stage2 > Formula Stage2 dualize = foldFormula dualAlg class Functor f => Dualize f where dualAlg :: f (Formula Stage2) > Formula Stage2 instance Dualize TT where dualAlg TT = ff instance Dualize FF where dualAlg FF = tt instance Dualize Atom where dualAlg (Atom p ts) = natom p ts instance Dualize NAtom where dualAlg (NAtom p ts) = atom p ts instance Dualize Or where dualAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = phi1 `and` phi2 instance Dualize And where dualAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 `or` phi2 instance Dualize Exists where dualAlg (Exists phi) = forall phi instance Dualize Forall where dualAlg (Forall phi) = exists phi instance (Dualize f, Dualize g) => Dualize (f :+: g) where dualAlg (Inl phi) = dualAlg phi dualAlg (Inr phi) = dualAlg phi
Now perhaps the pattern of these transformations is becoming clear. It is remarkably painless, involving just a little type class syntax as overhead, to write these functor algebras. The definition of pushNotInwards is another straightforward fold, with a helper type class PushNot. I’ve separated the instance for Not since it is the only one that does anything.
class Functor f => PushNot f where pushNotAlg :: f (Formula Stage2) > Formula Stage2 instance PushNot Not where pushNotAlg (Not phi) = dualize phi instance PushNot TT where pushNotAlg TT = tt instance PushNot FF where pushNotAlg FF = ff instance PushNot Atom where pushNotAlg (Atom p ts) = atom p ts instance PushNot Or where pushNotAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = phi1 `or` phi2 instance PushNot And where pushNotAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 `and` phi2 instance PushNot Exists where pushNotAlg (Exists phi) = exists phi instance PushNot Forall where pushNotAlg (Forall phi) = forall phi instance (PushNot f, PushNot g) => PushNot (f :+: g) where pushNotAlg (Inr phi) = pushNotAlg phi pushNotAlg (Inl phi) = pushNotAlg phi
All we have to do now is define a fold that calls pushNotAlg.
pushNotInwards :: Formula Stage1 > Formula Stage2 pushNotInwards = foldFormula pushNotAlg
Our running example now becomes:
*Main> texprint . pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact
Instead of the NAtom constructor, define the composition of two functors f `O` g and rewrite Stage2 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: (Not `O` Atom) :+: Or :+: And :+: Exists :+: Forall
Encode a form of subtyping that can reason using commutativity of coproducts, and rewrite the Dualize algebra using a twoparameter Dual type class as described above.
Stage 3 – Standardize variable names
To “standardize” variable names means to choose nonconflicting names for all the variables in a formula. Since we are using higherorder abstract syntax, Haskell is handling name conflicts for now. We can immediately jump to stage 4!
Stage 4 – Skolemization
It is interesting to arrive at the definition of Skolemization via the CurryHoward correspondence. You may be familiar with the idea that terms of type a > b are proofs of the proposition “ implies ”, assuming a and b are interpreted as propositions as well. This rests on a notion that a proof of a > b must be some process that can take a proof of a and generate a proof of b, a very computational notion. Rephrasing the above, a function of type a > b is a guarantee that for all elements of type a, there exists a corresponding element of type b. So a function type expresses an alternation of a universal quantifier with an existential. We will use this to replace all the existential quantifiers with freshlygenerated functions. We can of course, pass a unit type to a function, or a tuple of many arguments, to have as many universal quantifiers as we like.
Suppose we have , then in general there may be many choices for , given a particular and . By the axiom of choice, we can create a function that associates each pair with a corresponding arbitrarily, and then rewrite the above formula as . Technically, this formula is only equisatisfiable, but by convention I’m assuming constants to be existentially quantified.
So we need to traverse the syntax tree gathering free variables and replacing existentially quantified variables with functions of a fresh name. Since we are eliminating a binding construct, we now need to reason about fresh unique names.
Today’s formulas are small, so let us use a naïve and wasteful splittable unique identifier supply. Our supply is an infinite binary tree, where moving left prepends a 0 to the bit representation of the current counter, while moving right prepends a 1. Hence, the left and right subtrees are both infinite, nonoverlapping supplies of identifiers. The code for our unique identifier supplies is in Figure fig:unq.
Launchbury and PeytonJones {launchbury95state} have discussed how to use the ST monad to implement a much more sophisticated and spaceefficient version of the same idea.
type Unique = Int data UniqueSupply = UniqueSupply Unique UniqueSupply UniqueSupply initialUniqueSupply :: UniqueSupply initialUniqueSupply = genSupply 1 where genSupply n = UniqueSupply n (genSupply (2*n)) (genSupply (2*n+1)) splitUniqueSupply :: UniqueSupply > (UniqueSupply, UniqueSupply) splitUniqueSupply (UniqueSupply _ l r) = (l,r) getUnique :: UniqueSupply > (Unique, UniqueSupply) getUnique (UniqueSupply n l r) = (n,l) type Supply a = State UniqueSupply a fresh :: Supply Int fresh = do supply < get let (uniq,rest) = getUnique supply put rest return uniq freshes :: Supply UniqueSupply freshes = do supply < get let (l,r) = splitUniqueSupply supply put r return l{Unique supplies} (fig:unq)
The helper algebra for Skolemization is more complex than before because a Formula Stage2 is not directly transformed into Formula Stage4 but into a function from its free variables to a new formula. On top of that, the final computation takes place in the Supply monad because of the need to generate fresh names for Skolem functions. Correspondingly, we choose the return type of the algebra to be [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4). Thankfully, many instances are just boilerplate.
type Stage4 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: NAtom :+: Or :+: And :+: Forall class Functor f => Skolem f where skolemAlg :: f ([Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4)) > [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4) instance Skolem TT where skolemAlg TT xs = return tt instance Skolem FF where skolemAlg FF xs = return ff instance Skolem Atom where skolemAlg (Atom p ts) xs = return (atom p ts) instance Skolem NAtom where skolemAlg (NAtom p ts) xs = return (natom p ts) instance Skolem Or where skolemAlg (Or phi1 phi2) xs = liftM2 or (phi1 xs) (phi2 xs) instance Skolem And where skolemAlg (And phi1 phi2) xs = liftM2 and (phi1 xs) (phi2 xs) instance (Skolem f, Skolem g) => Skolem (f :+: g) where skolemAlg (Inr phi) = skolemAlg phi skolemAlg (Inl phi) = skolemAlg phi
In the case for a universal quantifier , any existentials contained within are parameterized by the variable , so we add to the list of free variables and Skolemize the body . Implementing this in Haskell, the algebra instance must be a function from Forall (Term > [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4)) to [Term] > Supply (Forall (Term > Formula Stage4)), which involves some juggling of the unique supply.
instance Skolem Forall where skolemAlg (Forall phi) xs = do supply < freshes return (forall $ \x > evalState (phi x (x:xs)) supply)
From the recursive result phi, we need to construct a new body for the forall constructor that has a pure body: It must not run in the Supply monad. Yet the body must contain only names that do not conflict with those used in the rest of this fold. This is why we need a moderately complex UniqueSupply data structure: To break off a disjointyetinfinite supply for use by evalState in the body of a forall, restoring purity to the body by running the Supply computation to completion.
Finally, the key instance for existentials is actually quite simple – just generate a fresh name and apply the Skolem function to all the arguments xs. The application phi (Const name xs) is how we express replacement of the existentially bound term with Const name xs with higherorder abstract syntax.
instance Skolem Exists where skolemAlg (Exists phi) xs = do uniq < fresh phi (Const ("Skol" ++ show uniq) xs) xs
After folding the Skolemization algebra over a formula, Since we are assuming the formula is closed, we apply the result of folding skolemAlg to the empty list of free variables. Then the resulting Supply (Formula Stage4) computation is run to completion starting with the initialUniqueSupply.
skolemize :: Formula Stage2 > Formula Stage4 skolemize formula = evalState (foldResult []) initialUniqueSupply where foldResult :: [Term] > Supply (Formula Stage4) foldResult = foldFormula skolemAlg formula
And the output is starting to get interesting:
*Main> texprint . skolemize . pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact
In the first line, maps a person to a food they don’t eat. In the second line, maps a food to a person who doesn’t eat it.
In the definition of skolemAlg, we use liftM2 to thread the Supply monad through the boring cases, but the (>) [Term] monad is managed manually. Augment the (>) [Term] monad to handle the Forall and Exists cases, and then combine this monad with Supply using either StateT or the monad coproduct {monadcoproduct}.
Stage 5 – Prenex Normal Form
Now that all the existentials have been eliminated, we can also eliminate the universally quantified variables. A formula is in prenex normal form when all the quantifiers have been pushed to the outside of other connectives. We have already removed existential quantifiers, so we are dealing only with universal quantifiers. As long as variable names don’t conflict, we can freely push them as far out as we like and commute all binding sites. By convention, free variables are universally quantifed, so a formula is valid if and only if the body of its prenex form is valid. Though this may sound technical, all we have to do to eliminate universal quantification is choose fresh names for all the variables and forget about their binding sites.
type Stage5 = TT :+: FF :+: Atom :+: NAtom :+: Or :+: And prenex :: Formula Stage4 > Formula Stage5 prenex formula = evalState (foldFormula prenexAlg formula) initialUniqueSupply class Functor f => Prenex f where prenexAlg :: f (Supply (Formula Stage5)) > Supply (Formula Stage5) instance Prenex Forall where prenexAlg (Forall phi) = do uniq < fresh phi (Var ("x" ++ show uniq)) instance Prenex TT where prenexAlg TT = return tt instance Prenex FF where prenexAlg FF = return ff instance Prenex Atom where prenexAlg (Atom p ts) = return (atom p ts) instance Prenex NAtom where prenexAlg (NAtom p ts) = return (natom p ts) instance Prenex Or where prenexAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = liftM2 or phi1 phi2 instance Prenex And where prenexAlg (And phi1 phi2) = liftM2 and phi1 phi2 instance (Prenex f, Prenex g) => Prenex (f :+: g) where prenexAlg (Inl phi) = prenexAlg phi prenexAlg (Inr phi) = prenexAlg phi
Since prenex is just forgetting the binders, our example is mostly unchanged.
*Main> texprint . prenex . skolemize . pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact
Stage 6 – Conjunctive Normal Form
Now all we have left is possiblynegated atomic predicates connected by and . This secondtolast stage distributes these over each other to reach a canonical form with all the conjunctions at the outer layer, and all the disjunctions in the inner layer.
At this point, we no longer have a recursive type for formulas, so there’s not too much point to reusing the old constructors.
type Literal = (Atom :+: NAtom) () type Clause = [Literal]  implicit disjunction type CNF = [Clause]  implicit conjunction (\/) :: Clause > Clause > Clause (\/) = (++) (/\) :: CNF > CNF > CNF (/\) = (++)
cnf :: Formula Stage5 > CNF cnf = foldFormula cnfAlg class Functor f => ToCNF f where cnfAlg :: f CNF > CNF instance ToCNF TT where cnfAlg TT = [] instance ToCNF FF where cnfAlg FF = [[]] instance ToCNF Atom where cnfAlg (Atom p ts) = [[inj (Atom p ts)]] instance ToCNF NAtom where cnfAlg (NAtom p ts) = [[inj (NAtom p ts)]] instance ToCNF And where cnfAlg (And phi1 phi2) = phi1 /\ phi2 instance ToCNF Or where cnfAlg (Or phi1 phi2) = [ a \/ b  a < phi1, b < phi2 ] instance (ToCNF f, ToCNF g) => ToCNF (f :+: g) where cnfAlg (Inl phi) = cnfAlg phi cnfAlg (Inr phi) = cnfAlg phi
And we can now watch our formula get really large and ugly, as our running example illustrates:
*Main> texprint . cnf . prenex . skolemize . pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact
Stage 7 – Implicative Normal Form
There is one more step we can take to remove all those aethetically displeasing negations in the CNF result above, reaching the particularly elegant implicative normal form. We just gather all negated literals and push them to left of an implicit implication arrow, i.e. utilize this equivalence:
data IClause = IClause  implicit implication [Atom ()]  implicit conjunction [Atom ()]  implicit disjunction type INF = [IClause]  implicit conjuction inf :: CNF > INF inf formula = map toImpl formula where toImpl disj = IClause [ Atom p ts  Inr (NAtom p ts) < disj ] [ t  Inl t@(Atom _ _ ) < disj ]
This form is especially useful for a resolution procedure because one always resolves a term on the left of an IClause with a term on the right.
*Main> texprint . inf . cnf . prenex . skolemize . pushNotInwards . elimImp $ foodFact
Voilà
Our running example has already been pushed all the way through, so now we can relax and enjoy writing normalize.
normalize :: Formula Input > INF normalize = inf . cnf . prenex . skolemize . pushNotInwards . elimImp
Remarks
Freely manipulating coproducts is a great way to make extensible data types as well as to express the structure of your data and computation. Though there is some syntactic overhead, it quickly becomes routine and readable. There does appear to be additional opportunity for scrapping boilerplate code. Ideally, we could elminate both the cases for uninteresting constructors and all the “glue” instances for the coproduct of two functors. Perhaps given more firstclass manipulation of type classes and instances {typeclasses} we could express that a coproduct has only one reasonable implementation for any type class that is an implemention of a functor algebra, and never write an algebra instance for (:+:) again.
Finally, Data Types à la Carte is not the only way to implement coproducts. In Objective Caml, polymorphic variants {ocamlvariants} serve a similar purpose, allowing free recombination of variant tags. The HList library {hlist} also provides an encoding of polymorphic variants in Haskell.
About the Author
Kenneth Knowles is a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, studying type systems, concurrency, and parallel programming. He maintains a blog of mathematical musings in Haskell at http://kennknowles.com/blog
{Kenn}
Appendix – Printing
We need to lift all the document operators into the freshness monad. I wrote all this starting with a pretty printer, so I just reuse the combinators and spit out TeX (which doesn’t need to actually be pretty in source form).
sepBy str = hsep . punctuate (text str) (<++>) = liftM2 (<+>) (<>) = liftM2 (<>) textM = return . text parensM = liftM parens class Functor f => TeXAlg f where texAlg :: f (Supply Doc) > Supply Doc instance TeXAlg Atom where texAlg (Atom p ts) = return . tex $ Const p ts instance TeXAlg NAtom where texAlg (NAtom p ts) = textM "\\neg" <++> (return . tex $ Const p ts) instance TeXAlg TT where texAlg _ = textM "TT" instance TeXAlg FF where texAlg _ = textM "FF" instance TeXAlg Not where texAlg (Not a) = textM "\\neg" <> parensM a instance TeXAlg Or where texAlg (Or a b) = parensM a <++> textM "\\vee" <++> parensM b instance TeXAlg And where texAlg (And a b) = parensM a <++> textM "\\wedge" <++> parensM b instance TeXAlg Impl where texAlg (Impl a b) = parensM a <++> textM "\\Rightarrow" <++> parensM b instance TeXAlg Forall where texAlg (Forall t) = do uniq < fresh let name = "x_{" ++ show uniq ++ "}" textM "\\forall" <++> textM name <> textM ".\\," <++> parensM (t (Var name)) instance TeXAlg Exists where texAlg (Exists t) = do uniq < fresh let name = "c_{" ++ show uniq ++ "}" textM "\\exists" <++> textM name <> textM ".\\," <++> parensM (t (Var name))
instance (TeXAlg f, TeXAlg g) => TeXAlg (f :+: g) where texAlg (Inl x) = texAlg x texAlg (Inr x) = texAlg x class TeX a where tex :: a > Doc instance TeXAlg f => TeX (Formula f) where tex formula = evalState (foldFormula texAlg formula) initialUniqueSupply instance (Functor f, TeXAlg f) => TeX (f ()) where tex x = evalState (texAlg . fmap (const (textM "")) $ x) initialUniqueSupply instance TeX CNF where tex formula = sepBy "\\wedge" $ fmap (parens . sepBy "\\vee" . fmap tex) formula instance TeX IClause where tex (IClause p q) = (brackets $ sepBy "\\wedge" $ fmap tex $ p) <+> text "\\Rightarrow" <+> (brackets $ sepBy "\\vee" $ fmap tex $ q) instance TeX INF where tex formula = sepBy "\\wedge" $ fmap (parens . tex) $ formula instance TeX Term where tex (Var x) = text x tex (Const c []) = text c tex (Const c args) = text c <> parens (sepBy "," (fmap tex args)) texprint :: TeX a => a > IO () texprint = putStrLn . render . tex