« Discussion:Lambda counting » : différence entre les versions
Aller à la navigation
Aller à la recherche
| (13 versions intermédiaires par 3 utilisateurs non affichées) | |||
| Ligne 4 : | Ligne 4 : | ||
Rene: |
Rene: |
||
* introduction |
|||
* section about lambda calculus to fix notation |
|||
Christophe: |
Christophe: |
||
| Ligne 17 : | Ligne 17 : | ||
Guillaume: |
Guillaume: |
||
NOTHING because I don't remember the proof of 'each starting lambda binds many variables' |
|||
==Reservation of future semaphore== |
==Reservation of future semaphore== |
||
| Ligne 32 : | Ligne 33 : | ||
Guillaume: |
Guillaume: |
||
== About the lower bound == |
|||
The lower bound can probably be improved by replacing Catalan with the sum of Mtzkin M(n,k) for |
|||
k between 0 and n/ln(n). This probably would give the same exponential factor for the lower and upper bound and get us nearer to an equivalent. Is it worth it ? |
|||
Dernière version du 2 décembre 2008 à 21:04
Current semaphore
Attribution of the work currently being done (this is a semaphore !)
Rene:
- introduction
Christophe:
- the lower and upper bound for size 0 variables
Kasia:
- the result about closed-term (and much more)
Marek:
Jakub:
Guillaume: NOTHING because I don't remember the proof of 'each starting lambda binds many variables'
Reservation of future semaphore
Rene:
Christophe:
Kasia:
- generating function
Marek:
Jakub:
Guillaume:
About the lower bound
The lower bound can probably be improved by replacing Catalan with the sum of Mtzkin M(n,k) for k between 0 and n/ln(n). This probably would give the same exponential factor for the lower and upper bound and get us nearer to an equivalent. Is it worth it ?