Re: A question about Axiom capabilities, Fwd: [fricas-devel] Abstract Vector Algebra
Martin Baker <[email protected]> Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:11:04 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mathematics.axiom.user |
|---|---|
| Organization | axiom |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 05/04/13 10:20, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > On 04/05/2013 10:51 AM, Martin Baker wrote: >> It seems a sight irony that Axiom(the program) does not do much about >> axioms. > > Of course, AXIOM can deal with axioms, but the SPAD language does not > include any way to specify axiom (not even Aldor can do this). I was thinking of something like CASL: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/cofi/wiki/index.php/CASL I realise that its purpose is different to a category in Axiom but it does at least show how the semantics as well as the syntax of a category could be encoded in a well defined language. Even if it were not possible to use this 'semantic' information for enforcing axioms or equation solvers it would be good to have it for documentation and automatically generating test scripts. >>> Looks like you aim at a general term rewriting system. > >> Yes, but again I recognise that there are no resources, so I was >> wondering if it would be possible to start with a very simple domain > > For a term rewriting system you basically have to start with the > implementation of a term algebra. The signature would basically tell, > what symbols are allowed. Since LISP is so fitting for a representation > of such a term algebra, it is no surprise that quite a lot of computer > algebra systems were written in LISP. > > Then you can add equations (axioms) and a mechanism to reduce a given > term modulo such equations. But there is no general algorithm to > transform a given term modulo such equation into a canonical form. A > "canonical form" does not even exist for every given term rewriting > system. The non-existence of the "eierlegende Wollmilchsau" > (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eierlegende_Wollmilchsau > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eierlegende_Wollmilchsau) is the reason > why people work on specialized solvers and use special representations > of the respective term algebra to make things fast. So are you saying that, for practical purposes, it is not even worth trying to write an equation solver for a given category/domain in SPAD, even for a very simple category? I realise there is no general algorithm to do this, but I was hoping there might have been the possibility of a common 'toolkit' so at least every category/domain writer was not totally on their own. Martin