Consider the expressions E1 = foldl op acc l
and E2 = foldr op acc l
.
What are some natural sufficient conditions for op
, acc
and/or l
that guarantee the equivalence of E1
and E2
?
A naive example would be that if op
is constant then both are equivalent.
I'm pretty sure there must be precise conditions involving commutativity and/or associativity of op
, and/or finitude of l
, and/or neutrality of acc
.
If op
is an associative operation, acc
is a neutral element of op
, and l
is finite, then they are equivalent.
Indeed, the result of foldr
is
(l1 `op` (l2 `op` ... (ln `op` acc)))
while that of foldl
is
(((acc `op` l1) `op` l2) `op` ... ln)
To prove that they are equal, it suffices to simplify acc
away, and reassociate.
Even if acc
is not a neutral element, but acc
still satisfies the weaker condition
forall x, acc `op` x = x `op` acc
then, if op
is associative and l
is finite, we again get the desired equivalence.
To prove this, we can exploit the fact that acc
commutes with everything, and "move" it from the tail position to the head one, exploiting associativity. E.g.
(l1 `op` (l2 `op` acc))
=
(l1 `op` (acc `op` l2))
=
((l1 `op` acc) `op` l2)
=
((acc `op` l1) `op` l2)
In the question it is mentioned the sufficient condition op = const k
which is associative but has no neutral element. Still, any acc
commutes with everything, so the "constant op
" case is a subcase of the above sufficient condition.
Assuming op
has a neutral element acc
, if we assume
foldr op acc [a,b,c] = foldl op acc [a,b,c] -- (*)
we derive
a `op` (b `op` c) = (a `op` b) `op` c
Hence, If (*)
holds for all a,b,c
, then op
has to be associative. Associativity is then necessary and sufficient (when a neutral element exists).
If l
is infinite, foldl
always diverges no matter what op,acc
are. If op
is strict on its second argument, foldr
also diverges (i.e., it returns bottom).
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With