Newest at the top
| 2024-05-01 03:49:59 +0200 | <ski> | (not clear how would apply something like that to BDDs, though) |
| 2024-05-01 03:49:07 +0200 | <ski> | (what i was thinking about was encoding the sharing in the type, or rather, in the decomposition process, making it mandatory, thereby making sure it will happen in the result as well) |
| 2024-05-01 03:47:32 +0200 | <ski> | there's also a problem that when traversing a structure with sharing, producing a new parallel structure, that would normally lose all sharing |
| 2024-05-01 03:46:30 +0200 | ski | . o O ( "BDD-Based Deductive Databasee" <https://bddbddb.sourceforge.net/> ; "Soufflé - A Datalog Synthesis Tool for Static Analysis" <https://souffle-lang.github.io> ) |
| 2024-05-01 03:43:11 +0200 | waleee | (~waleee@h-176-10-144-38.NA.cust.bahnhof.se) (Quit: WeeChat 4.1.2) |
| 2024-05-01 03:38:18 +0200 | <c_wraith> | well, no. The problem is sharing only happens when explicitly introduced, and doing that is going to require bookkeeping. And the memory cost of that bookkeeping is ridiculous. |
| 2024-05-01 03:36:16 +0200 | <talismanick> | Is the problem is that laziness memoizes and shares for you without asking, making every tree equivalent to a DAG but not the one you want? |
| 2024-05-01 03:32:04 +0200 | <talismanick> | kind of like SAT solving |
| 2024-05-01 03:31:46 +0200 | <talismanick> | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_decision_diagram |
| 2024-05-01 03:31:22 +0200 | <ski> | s/re/are/ |
| 2024-05-01 03:31:19 +0200 | ski | doesn't recall what those re |
| 2024-05-01 03:31:09 +0200 | <talismanick> | yeah |
| 2024-05-01 03:30:28 +0200 | <ski> | hm, is "BDD" Binary Decision Diagram ? |
| 2024-05-01 03:29:18 +0200 | <talismanick> | is it the kind of thing where it becomes obvious when you write it down? |
| 2024-05-01 03:29:12 +0200 | otto_s | (~user@p4ff27c65.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 2024-05-01 03:29:11 +0200 | <ski> | or, in terms of composition, if `Compose (Compose ar0 ar1a) (Compose ar1b ar2) = ar012', then `ar1a = ar1b'. so we have something like `Compose :: (ar0 :: Slice n) -> (ar1 :: Slice n) -> Agree ar0 ar1 => Slice (1+n)', where `Agree (Singleton x) (Singleton y)' as well as `(ar1a = ar1b) => Agree (Compose ar0 ar1a) (Compose ar1b ar2)' (where `Agree :: Slice n -> Slice n -> Constraint') |
| 2024-05-01 03:27:48 +0200 | otto_s | (~user@p4ff27e40.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-05-01 03:26:03 +0200 | <talismanick> | because, if one can assume "maximal sharing", I feel like I can see in my head how a BDD might be implemented with a (real) free monad |
| 2024-05-01 03:24:25 +0200 | <ski> | basically, we have, if `Just (ar01,ar12) = decompose ar012', `Just (ar0,ar1a) = decompose ar01' and `Just (ar1b,ar2) = decompose ar12', then `ar1a = ar1b' |
| 2024-05-01 03:23:41 +0200 | <talismanick> | I'm feeling a little stupid, then, trying to understand https://hackage.haskell.org/package/zsdd/docs/Data-Diagram.html |
| 2024-05-01 03:18:35 +0200 | <ski> | advantage of the sharing |
| 2024-05-01 03:18:29 +0200 | <ski> | given an array/vector with indices from `0' to `n-1' (incl.), we could decompose this into one slice from `0' to `n-2' and one from `1' to `n-1', guaranteed to overlap on the `1' to `n-2' part. eventually, we'd get down to singleton slices, which could be the base case of a dynamic programming, then results percolating back up in a "lattive"-like structure, rather than a tree, proper, thereby taking |
| 2024-05-01 03:15:53 +0200 | waldo | (~waldo@user/waldo) |
| 2024-05-01 03:15:04 +0200 | <ski> | iow, i'm thinking of something like a catamorphism |
| 2024-05-01 03:15:01 +0200 | <c_wraith> | you can embed basically anything you want into f |
| 2024-05-01 03:14:50 +0200 | <c_wraith> | pick f carefully. |
| 2024-05-01 03:14:36 +0200 | <ski> | s/iput/input/ |
| 2024-05-01 03:14:28 +0200 | <ski> | yea, but how do you detect, or enforce, the sharing, of the iput structure, to justify the sharing of the output computation ? |
| 2024-05-01 03:11:30 +0200 | <c_wraith> | You just need sharing. |
| 2024-05-01 03:11:26 +0200 | <c_wraith> | You don't need any special structure for that, though |
| 2024-05-01 03:10:01 +0200 | fryguybob | (~fryguybob@024-094-050-022.inf.spectrum.com) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2024-05-01 03:09:19 +0200 | <ski> | hmm .. i guess you could have an operation that requires that its opeands "overlap" (have some common substructures), in some particular fashion. so a recursive decomposition of a problem (corresponding to matching on such a constructor operation) would then naturally allow dynamic programming (iow a DAG, rather than a tree, recursive decomposition/structuring of the original problem), presumably |
| 2024-05-01 03:02:05 +0200 | pointlessslippe1 | (~pointless@212.82.82.3) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2024-05-01 03:00:13 +0200 | <geekosaur> | talismanick, isn't it actually a DAG anyway? cycles would severely limit the monads you could use to "interpret" it |
| 2024-05-01 02:57:02 +0200 | <geekosaur> | oh, right, I saw that a few months ago |
| 2024-05-01 02:55:23 +0200 | <talismanick> | If a free monad is a tree of expressions, is there a DAG analogue? |
| 2024-05-01 02:53:14 +0200 | talismanick | (~user@2601:644:937c:ed10::ae5) |
| 2024-05-01 02:51:02 +0200 | <jackdk> | It was https://reasonablypolymorphic.com/blog/abusing-constraints/ |
| 2024-05-01 02:47:05 +0200 | xff0x | (~xff0x@softbank219059019218.bbtec.net) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-05-01 02:44:57 +0200 | whatsupdoc | (uid509081@id-509081.hampstead.irccloud.com) |
| 2024-05-01 02:43:47 +0200 | wroathe | (~wroathe@user/wroathe) |
| 2024-05-01 02:43:47 +0200 | wroathe | (~wroathe@24-152-179-157.fttp.usinternet.com) (Changing host) |
| 2024-05-01 02:43:47 +0200 | wroathe | (~wroathe@24-152-179-157.fttp.usinternet.com) |
| 2024-05-01 02:14:39 +0200 | mima | (~mmh@aftr-62-216-211-165.dynamic.mnet-online.de) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2024-05-01 02:08:23 +0200 | <jackdk> | Thanks but it's neither of those. It was more like a typelevel answer to the question "what resources is this function going to touch?" in a way that let you accumulate the names in a constraint and pull them down to the value level to write out a policy or equivalent |
| 2024-05-01 02:04:38 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) |
| 2024-05-01 02:04:01 +0200 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) (Quit: Leaving) |
| 2024-05-01 02:03:32 +0200 | lol_ | jcarpenter2 |
| 2024-05-01 01:58:08 +0200 | waldo | (~waldo@user/waldo) (Quit: waldo) |
| 2024-05-01 01:53:37 +0200 | wroathe | (~wroathe@user/wroathe) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |