I'm currently reading Category Theory for Programmers by Bartosz Milewski. In chapter about natural transformation i found a following paragraph:
Letβs focus on two objects of πππ β categories π and π. There is
a set of natural transformations that go between functors that connect
π to π. These natural transformations are our new arrows from π to
π. By the same token, there are natural transformations going between
functors that connect π to π, which we can treat as new arrows going
from π to π. Horizontal composition is the composition of these
arrows.
Could someone explain how did natural trasformation between functors that connect categories C and D suddenly became arrows connecting C and D, which would make it a functor again?
It so happens that Cat has more structure than the obvious one: a category with categories as objects and functors as morphisms. There is a second layer, in which we combine all natural transformations between all pairs of functors from C to D and call it a hom-set from C to D. We define composition between these hom-sets in terms of horizontal composition of natural transformations. Notice, these new hom-sets are different from old hom-sets, which are sets of functors.
Related
I'm trying to understand how to create NFA-s from regular expressions, but I am really confused from epsilon transitions. I have this example in my textbook , but I don't understand why epsilon transitions are used and how does one know when to use them.
In general, espilon-transitions are used when they are convenient. For example, when constructing an NFA from a regular expression, you start by constructing small parts of the automaton corresponding to parts of the expression. To connect them, you need to put a transition. But if there is no symbol to be read there, an epsilon transition is a simple way to do this. They are, however never necessary, you can always find a solution without them.
In your example, just apply the algorithm described in your textbook. It tells you when to use them.
The epsilon transitions
from 1 to 2 probably connects the parts for (a|b)* and for ac
1->5 and 8->1 probably result from the *
5->6 and 5->7 probably result from the alternative in |
Epsilon-transitions in NFAs are a natural representation of choice or disjunction or union in regular expressions. That is, a regular expression like r + s (or r | s or r U s depending on your preferred notation) is naturally represented as an NFA consisting of two independent NFAs, one for r and one for s, joined using e-transitions as follows:
e
----->q0----->(r)
|
| e
|
V
(s)
When used to connect states in more complicated ways, the effect may not be as easy or natural to describe, but essentially these transitions let you choose unconditionally among multiple options. So, if I have seen a part of the input already and there are a few different ways the string could end, I can represent that by using e-transitions to states that handle the different possibilities.
In your example, the e-transitions are not really serving any very useful function and are merely artifacts of the conversion algorithm you have used. That algorithm includes them because, in the general case, they may be useful or necessary. In your specific case this was not true, so they look out of place.
I am given the above system for atomic propositions {a,b,c}.
I'm then meant to say if certain LTL formulae hold (such as β’βc).
I understand what the LTL formulae mean (eventually forever c holds) but I have no idea how to read the diagram and relate it to the LTL.
I assume it's like a flow chart in that we start from the top left, /{a} and can go through the different states. But what does each of it mean divided by a?
Looks like FSM/transduser rather than a Kripke structure. Input/output or more generally precondition/postcondition is a common notation for FSM and its kin. precondition/postcondition (a and b and ...) / (x and y and...). So a in the state q1. In next states either only b in q4 or b and c or q3. Might be of course or instead of and in precondition, otherwise the system might halt..
Is it possible to obtain the maximum difference between two columns (for example starting and ending weights)?
Right now I'm leaning towards no as this would require a new column with the difference between the two columns for each row, then taking the max of that. Doing it the way I orginally intended doesn't work either since arithmetic operations are not allowed in the conditions of select operations (e.g. SIGMA (c1 - c2 < c3 - c4)(Table) is not allowed).
Disclosure: this is part of a homework question.
It can be done, exactly in the way you planned, but you need generalized projection for that. The generalized projection is the operator
Ξ (E1, E2,..., En)R
where R is a relation, and E1...En are expressions in the form aβb, where a and b are attributes of R or constants, and β is an arbitrary binary operator between them. The result is a relation with attributes E1...En.
This would allow you to project the differences into a new relation (R' := Ξ (x-y)R), then find the maximum on that, just as you planned.
If we're not allowed to use generalized projection, then I think we have no means to actually subtract an attribute from another, or to actually calculate anything from them, as the definition of projection allow only attribute names, and the definition of selection allow only expressions of the form aΞΈb where a and b are attributes or constants and ΞΈ is a binary relational operator (this is logical, in its way, because if we have a relation R(X,Y), then we have no idea about the type of X or Y, making operations on them quite meaningless).
I think generalized projection is a great extension to relational algebra. It's obviously immensely useful in real life, and it can be defended even from a more scientific point of view: if we allow binary conditional operators on the values like "X > 50", then we made assumptions on the type already, rendering that point kind of moot. Your instructor may disagree, though.
If you're looking to do this in the real world, you should be able to do this with a subquery (or a view, which amounts to much the same thing), something like:
select max (diff) from (
select high - low as diff from blah blah blah
)
Whether this applies to the abstract world of relational algebra, I couldn't say. I'm too busy fixing those damn real-world problems :-)
The application I'm working on is a "configurator" of sorts. It's written in C# and I even wrote a rules engine to go with it. The idea is that there are a bunch of propositional logic statements, and the user can make selections. Based on what they've selected, some other items become required or completely unavailable.
The propositional logic statements generally take the following forms:
A => ~X
ABC => ~(X+Y)
A+B => Q
A(~(B+C)) => ~Q A <=> B
The symbols:
=> -- Implication
<=> -- Material Equivalence
~ -- Not
+ -- Or
Two letters side-by-side -- And
I'm very new to Prolog, but it seems like it might be able to handle all of the "rules processing" for me, allowing me to get out of my current rules engine (it works, but it's not as fast or easy to maintain as I would like).
In addition, all of the available options fall in a hierarchy. For instance:
Outside
Color
Red
Blue
Green
Material
Wood
Metal
If an item at the second level (feature, such as Color) is implied, then an item at the third level (option, such as Red) must be selected. Similarly if we know that a feature is false, then all of the options under it are also false.
The catch is that every product has it's own set of rules. Is it a reasonable approach to set up a knowledge base containing these operators as predicates, then at runtime start buliding all of the rules for the product?
The way I imagine it might work would be to set up the idea of components, features, and options. Then set up the relationships between then (for instance, if the feature is false, then all of its options are false). At runtime, add the product's specific rules. Then pass all of the user's selections to a function, retrieving as output which items are true and which items are false.
I don't know all the implications of what I'm asking about, as I'm just getting into Prolog, but I'm trying to avoid going down a bad path and wasting lots of time in the process.
Some questions that might help target what I'm trying to find out:
Does this sound do-able?
Am I barking up the wrong tree?
Are there any drawbacks or concerns to trying to create all of these rules at runtime?
Is there a better system for this kind of thing out there that I might be able to squeeze into a C# app (Silverlight, to be exact)?
Are there other competing systems that I should examine?
Do you have any general advice about this sort of thing?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
Sure, but Prolog has a learning curve.
Rule-based inference is Prolog's game, though you may have to rewrite many rules into Horn clauses. A+B => Q is doable (it becomes q :- a. q :- b. or q :- (a;b).) but your other examples must be rewritten, including A => ~X.
Depends on your Prolog compiler, specifically whether it supports indexing for dynamic predicates.
Search around for terms like "forward checking", "inference engine" and "business rules". Various communities keep inventing different terminologies for this problem.
Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a logic programming language, implemented as a Prolog extension, that is much closer to rule-based inference/forward chaining/business rules engines. If you want to use it, you'll still have to learn basic Prolog, though.
Keep in mind that Prolog is a programming language, not a silver bullet for logical inference. It cuts some corners of first-order logic to keep things efficiently computable. This is why it only handles Horn clauses: they can be mapped one-to-one with procedures/subroutines.
You can also throw in DCGs to generate bill of materials. The idea is
roughly that terminals can be used to indicate subproducts, and
non-terminals to define more and more complex combinations of a subproducts
until you arrive at your final configurable products.
Take for example the two attribute value pairs Color in {red, blue, green}
and Material in {wood, metal}. These could specify a door knob, whereby
not all combinations are possible:
knob(red,wood) --> ['100101'].
knob(red,metal) --> ['100102'].
knob(blue,metal) --> ['100202'].
You could then define a door as:
door ... --> knob ..., panel ...
Interestingly you will not see any logic formula in such a product specification,
only facts and rules, and a lot of parameters passed around. You can use the
parameters in a knowledge acquisition component. By just running uninstantiated
goals you can derive possible values for the attribute value pairs. The predicate
setof/3 will sort and removen duplicates for you:
?- setof(Color,Material^Bill^knob(Color,Material,Bill,[]),Values).
Value = [blue, red]
?- setof(Material,Color^Bill^knob(Color,Material,Bill,[]),Values).
Material = [metal, wood]
Now you know the range of the attributes and you can let the end-user successively
pick an attribute and a value. Assume he takes the attribute Color and its value blue.
The range of the attribute Material then shrinks accordingly:
?- setof(Material,Bill^knob(blue,Material,Bill,[]),Values).
Material = [metal]
In the end when all attributes have been specified you can read off the article
numbers of the subproducts. You can use this for price calculation, by adding some
facts that give you additional information on the article numbers, or to generate
ordering lists etc..:
?- knob(blue,metal,Bill,[]).
Bill = ['100202']
Best Regards
P.S.:
Oh it seems that the bill of materials idea used in the product configurator
goes back to Clocksin & Mellish. At least I find a corresponding
comment here:
http://www.amzi.com/manuals/amzi/pro/ref_dcg.htm#DCGBillMaterials
I'm looking for an algorithm to help me build 2D patterns based on rules. The idea is that I could write a script using a given site of parameters, and it would return a random, 2-dimensional sequence up to a given length.
My plan is to use this to generate image patterns based on rules. Things like image fractals or sprites for game levels could possibly use this.
For example, lets say that you can use A, B, C, & D to create the pattern. The rule is that C and A can never be next to each other, and that D always follows C. Next, lets say I want a pattern of size 4x4. The result might be the following which respects all the rules.
A B C D
B B B B
C D B B
C D C D
Are there any existing libraries that can do calculations like this? Are there any mathematical formulas I can read-up on?
While pretty inefficient concering runtime, backtracking is an often used algorithm for such a problem.
It follows a simple pattern, and if written correctly, you can easily replace a rule set into it.
Define your rule data structures; i.e., define the set of operations that the rules can encapsulate, and define the available cross-referencing that can be done. Once you've done this, you should have a clearer view of what type of algorithms to use to apply these rules to a potential result set.
Supposing that your rules are restricted to "type X is allowed to have type Y immediately to its left/right/top/bottom" you potentially have situations where generating possible patterns is computationally difficult. Take a look at Wang Tiles (a good source is the book Tilings and Patterns by Grunbaum and Shephard) and you'll see that with the states sets of rules you might define sets of Wang Tiles. Appropriate sets of these are Turing Complete.
For small rectangles, or your sets of rules, this may only be of academic interest. As mentioned elsewhere a backtracking approach might be appropriate for your ruleset - in which case you may want to consider appropriate heuristics for the order in which new components are added to your grid. Again, depending on your rulesets, other approaches might work. E.g. if your ruleset admits many solutions you might get a long way by randomly allocating many items to the grid before attempting to fill in remaining gaps.