(Leftmost-Outermost) Beta Reduction is Invariant, Indeed · HackerPapers discussions

(Leftmost-Outermost) Beta Reduction is Invariant, Indeed — mentioned by mananaysiempre

Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:14:01 GMT

Didn’t have access to my archive at the time, so got some of the details wrong it seems (e.g. CbV not CbN, result for time is older than I remembered). Main thrust should remain valid, but be careful. In any case, here you go: Dal Lago, Martini (2008). “The weak lambda calculus as a reasonable machine”. DOI:10.1016/j.tcs.2008.01.044, apparently not on arXiv. Accattoli (2012). “A fresh look at the lambda-calculus”. DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2019.1, apparently not on arXiv. Accattoli, Dal Lago (2014). “Beta reduction is invariant, indeed”. DOI: 10.1145/2603088.2603105, arXiv: 1405.3311 [cs.LO].…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

(Leftmost-Outermost) Beta Reduction is Invariant, Indeed — mentioned by mafribe

Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:14:28 GMT

If you have a math-background, category theory is easy to learn, as it's merely a trivial (in retrospect, but not in prospect) generalisation of existing mathematics. It's basically the abstract theory of binary associative 'thingies' and 'functions' that preserve these 'thingies'. Most mathematicians pick it up by osmosis without really trying. That's because they understand so well what CT abstracts from. Experience has shown that without a maths background learning CT is extremely difficult. Almost everybody basically fails. As somebody who taught himself CT without a math background, I…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.