Changes

→‎Step 4: markup
Line 56: Line 56:     
===Step 4===
 
===Step 4===
 +
 +
Consider the parse tree of the term <math>\operatorname{I}</math> in terms of the primitive combinators <math>\operatorname{K}</math> and <math>\operatorname{S},</math> that is, the articulation or construction corresponding to the term equation <math>\operatorname{I} = (\operatorname{K}(\operatorname{K}\operatorname{S})),</math> as shown here:
    
<pre>
 
<pre>
If we start from the parse tree of the term I in terms of
  −
the primitive combinators K and S, that is, the articulation
  −
or construction corresponding to the term equation I = (K(KS)),
  −
   
           K  S
 
           K  S
 
           o  o
 
           o  o
Line 67: Line 65:  
         o  (o)
 
         o  (o)
 
         \ /
 
         \ /
   I  =  (o) ,
+
   I  =  (o)
 +
</pre>
   −
then adding appropriate type-indices to the nodes of this tree will
+
Adding appropriate type-indices to the nodes of this tree will leave us with a proof tree for the propositional type of <math>\operatorname{I} : A \Rightarrow A.</math>  Thus, the construal or construction of <math>\operatorname{I}</math> as <math>\operatorname{K}(\operatorname{K}\operatorname{S})</math> constitutes a hint or clue to the proof of <math>A \Rightarrow A</math> in the intuitionistic propositional calculus.  Although guesswork may succeed in easy cases such as this, a more systematic procedure is to follow the development in Step&nbsp;1, that takes us from contextual specification to operational algorithm, and to carry along the type information as we go, ending up with a typed parse tree for <math>\operatorname{I},</math> tantamount to a proof tree for <math>A \Rightarrow A.</math>
leave us with a proof tree for the propositional type of I : A => A.
  −
Thus, the construal or construction of I as K(KS) constitutes a hint
  −
or clue to the proof of A => A in the intuitionistic propositional
  −
calculus.  Although guesswork may succeed in easy cases such as this,
  −
a more systematic procedure is to follow the development in Step 1,
  −
that takes us from contextual specification to operational algorithm,
  −
and to carry along the type information as we go, ending up with
  −
a typed parse tree for I, tantamount to a proof tree for A => A.
     −
Term Development: Contextual Definition ~~~> Combinator Construction
+
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>\text{Term Development : Contextual Definition} \rightsquigarrow \text{Combinator Construction}</math>
 +
|}
    +
<pre>
 
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
 
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
 
|                                                          |
 
|                                                          |
12,080

edits