Results 1 
5 of
5
Elementary strong functional programming
, 1995
"... Functional programming is a good idea, but we haven’t got it quite right yet. What we have been doing up to now is weak (or partial) functional programming. What we should be doing is strong (or total) functional programming in which all computations terminate. We propose an elementary discipline o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Functional programming is a good idea, but we haven’t got it quite right yet. What we have been doing up to now is weak (or partial) functional programming. What we should be doing is strong (or total) functional programming in which all computations terminate. We propose an elementary discipline of strong functional programming. A key feature of the discipline is that we introduce a type distinction between data, which is known to be finite, and codata, which is (potentially) infinite. 1 What is Functional Programming? It is widely agreed that functional programming languages make excellent introductory teaching vehicles for the basic concepts of computing. The wide range of topics covered in this symposium is evidence for that. But what is functional programming? Well, it is programming with functions, that much seems clear. But this really is not specific enough. The methods of denotational semantics show us
Total Functional Programming
 Journal of Universal Computer Science
, 2004
"... We now define the notion, already discussed, of an effectively calculable function of positive integers by identifying it with the notion of a recursive function of positive integers (or of a lambdadefinable function of positive integers). The phrase in parentheses refers to the apparatus which Chur ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We now define the notion, already discussed, of an effectively calculable function of positive integers by identifying it with the notion of a recursive function of positive integers (or of a lambdadefinable function of positive integers). The phrase in parentheses refers to the apparatus which Church had developed to investigate this and other problems in the foundations of mathematics: the calculus of lambda conversion. Both the Thesis and the lambda calculus have been of seminal influence on the development of Computing Science. The main subject of this article is the lambda calculus but I will begin with a brief sketch of the emergence of the Thesis. The epistemological status of Church’s Thesis is not immediately clear from the above quotation and remains a matter of debate, as is explored in other papers of this volume. My own view, which I will state but not elaborate here, is that the thesis is empirical because it relies for its significance on a claim about what can be calculated by mechanisms. This becomes clearer in
Article Not Finitude but Countability: Implications of Imagination Positing Countability in Time
"... Abstract: In this article, we will show how imagination and time are two sides of the same coin. To explain this, we require that imagination posits countability of alternatives. A countable set of alternatives can be sequenced on a timeline, for example the thinking human’s past, or it can be expre ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract: In this article, we will show how imagination and time are two sides of the same coin. To explain this, we require that imagination posits countability of alternatives. A countable set of alternatives can be sequenced on a timeline, for example the thinking human’s past, or it can be expressed as a countably infinite set of cycles such as a Fourier transform gives us. At the heart of our discussion is a technical argument arising from Cantor’s diagonal method. A conclusion that we arrive at is that the finite/infinite opposition, in particular in philosophy, is confusing at best. Instead we propose a countable/uncountable opposition as being a far clearer basis for understanding human imagination and as a basis for the philosophy of time. We discuss Kant, Heidegger and Gödel in this light. We draw out implications for “machine imagination, ” and we propose a new basis for understanding human creativity and imagination.