Fall 2001, CSE 520: Solution of Assignment 2

Exercise 1

Note that   M N P = (N M) (M P)   is satisfied if the following equality is satisfied:
   M = \np.(n M)(M p)
This latter equation is equivalent to the following fixpoint equation:
   M = (\mnp.(n m)(m p)) M
Hence the solution can be obtained by applying the fixpoint operator:
   M = Y (\mnp.(n m)(m p)) 

Exercise 2

It is sufficient to define
   Iterate = \fzx.zfx
In fact, we then have
   Iterate F [n] X = (\fzx.zfx) F [n] X = [n] F X = Fn X

Exercise 3

It is sufficient to define
   [minus] = \xy.Iterate [Predecessor] y x
where   Predecessor is the predecessor function defined in Lecture 4. In fact, we then have
   [minus] [m] [n] = (\xy.Iterate [Predecessor] y x) [m] [n] 
                   = Iterate [Predecessor] [n] [m] 
                   = [Predecessor]n [m]
and it is easy to see that
   [Predecessor]n [m] = [m - n] if m >= n
   [Predecessor]n [m] = [0]     if m < n

Exercise 4

We can use the minimalization operator and define
   smallest_prime_factor n = 2 + min k. n mod (k+2) = 0
where n mod (k+1) represents the remainder of the integer division of n by k+1. Note that we can be ensured that the result of this function is a prime number, because we take the minimum divisor of n.

We can also semplify the computation by starting the iteration from 2 instead than 0:

   smallest_prime_factor n = min k > 1. n mod k = 0
where min k > 2. n mod k = 0 represents the minimum number k greater than 1 (hence greater than or equal to 2) such that n mod k = 0.

Following the standard technique illustrated in Lecture 5, we can therefore define:

   Spf = (Y F) [2]
   F = \f z k. [if_then_else] ([is_zero] ([mod] z k)) k (f z ([S] k)) 
It remains to define the lambda term [mod]. Note that mod (in curried version) can be defined recursively as follows:
   mod = \z k. if z < k then z else mod (z-k) k
and, in fixpoint version:
   mod = (\f z k. if z < k then z else f (z-k) k) mod
>From which, using the fixpoint operator, we can define:
   [mod] = Y (\f z k. [if_then_else] ([smaller_than] z k) z (f ([minus] z k) k))
We know already how to lambda define [minus] (Exercise 3). As for the smaller_than function, we have:
   smaller_than = \z k. if k = 0 
                           then false 
                           else if z = 0 
                                   then true 
                                   else smaller_than (z-1)(k-1)
Hence we can define:
   [smaller_than] = Y (\f z k. [if_then_else] 
                                  ([is_zero] k)
                                        ([is_zero] z)
                                          (f ([Predecessor] z)([Predecessor] k)))

Exercise 5

  1. Not normalizing. In fact the only possible reductions are:
       ((\x.xxx)(\x.xx))(\yz.z) -> ((\x.xx)(\x.xx)(\x.xx))(\yz.z)
                                -> ((\x.xx)(\x.xx)(\x.xx))(\yz.z)
                                -> ...

  2. Weakly normalizing. In fact we have an infinite reduction chain:
       (\yz.z)((\x.xxx)(\x.xx)) -> (\yz.z)((\x.xx)(\x.xx)(\x.xx))
                                -> (\yz.z)((\x.xx)(\x.xx)(\x.xx))
                                -> ...
    and also we have the following finite reduction chain:
       (\yz.z)((\x.xxx)(\x.xx)) -> \z.z (normal form)

  3. Strongly normalizing. In fact we have only one possible reduction chain, and it is finite:
       (\yz.z)(\x.xxx)(\x.xx) -> (\z.z)(\x.xx) -> (\x.xx) (normal form)

Exercise 6

  1. False. For instance, take M = (\x.xx). Then M is in normal form (hence strongly normalizing), but M M = (\x.xx)(\x.xx)is the term Omega (see Lecture 6), which we know is not normalizing.

  2. True. In fact the only possible reduction chains from \x.M are those of the form
       \x.M -> \x.M1 -> \x.M2 -> \x.M3 ->...
    which are obtained via the xi rule from reduction chains from M of the form:
       M -> M1 -> M2 -> M3 ->...
    If the first were infinite, so would be the latter.

  3. True. In fact for every reduction chain from N of the form
       N -> N1 -> N2 -> N3 ->...
    we have, via the Congruence 1 rule, a corresponding reduction chain from M of the form
       M = N P -> N1 P -> N2 P -> N3 P ->...
    If the first were infinite, so would be the latter.

    We can prove in an analogous way that also P must be strongly normalizing.

Exercise 7

  1. Not possible. Y M cannot be strongly normalizing. In fact we always have the infinite reduction chain:
       Y M = (\f.(\x.f(xx)(\x.f(xx)) M -> (\x.M(xx)(\x.M(xx))
                                       -> M((\x.M(xx))(\x.M(xx)))
                                       -> M(M((\x.M(xx))(\x.M(xx))))
                                       -> ...

  2. Possible. For example, M = \xy.y satisfies the requirement. In fact we have:
       Y M = (\f.(\x.f(xx)(\x.f(xx)) M -> (\x.M(xx)(\x.M(xx))
                                       -> M((\x.M(xx))(\x.M(xx)))
                                       =  (\xy.y)((\x.M(xx))(\x.M(xx)))
                                       -> \y.y (normal form)
    So Y M is weakly normalizing. And clearly it is not strongly normalizing for the argument given in previous point.

  3. Possible. For example, M = \x.x satisfies the requirement. In fact using redexes containing M in this case does not help:
       Y M = (\f.(\x.f(xx)(\x.f(xx)) M -> (\x.M(xx)(\x.M(xx))
                                       -> M((\x.M(xx))(\x.M(xx)))
                                       =  (\x.x)((\x.M(xx))(\x.M(xx)))
                                       -> (\x.M(xx)(\x.M(xx))
                                       -> ...

Exercise 8

  1. Convertible. In fact both M and N have normal form [1].

  2. Not convertible. In fact M has normal form [1] and N has normal form [0]. If they were convertible they would have the same normal form.