Finite Differences of Real-Valued Functions



Δf(x,y) = (f(x)-f(y))/(x-y)





Δ(fg)(x,y) = (f(x)g(x)-f(y)g(y))/(x-y)



= (f(x)g(x)-f(x)g(y)+f(x)g(y)-f(y)g(y))/(x-y)



= f(x)Δg(x,y)+g(y)Δf(x,y)





f(x) = 1+x f(x)





Δf(x,y) = x Δf(x,y)+f(y)



Finite Differences of Types



Δf(x,y) = (xN-yN)/(x-y) = xN-1+xN-2y+xN-3y2+...+yN-1





right :: p j + (Δp c j , c) → (j , Δp c j ) + p c





ΔT(X,Y) = 1/(1-(T(X)+T(Y))



right

(,)

Conor McBride's discovery that you can differentiate container types to get useful constructions like zippers has to be one of the most amazing things I've seen in computer science. But seeing the success of differentiation suggests the idea of taking a step back and looking at finite differences.Forget about types for the moment and consider functions on a field R. Given a function f:R→R we can define Δf:R×R→R byΔ is the finite difference operator. But does it make any kind of sense for types? At first it seems not because we can't define subtraction and division of types. Can we massage this definition into a form that uses only addition and multiplication?First consider Δc where c is a constant function. Then Δc(x,y)=0.Now consider the identity function i(x)=x. Then Δi(x,y)=1.Δ is linear in the sense that if f and g are functions, Δ(f+g) = Δf+Δg.Now consider the product of two functions, f and g.So now we have a Leibniz-like rule. We can compute finite differences of polynomials without using subtraction or division! What's more, we can use these formulae to difference algebraic functions defined implicitly by polynomials. For example consider f(x)=1/(1-x). We can rewrite this implicitly, using only addition and multiplication, asDifferencing both sides we getThat tells us that Δf(x,y) = f(x)f(y).We're now ready to apply our operator to types. Instead of functions on the reals we work with functors on the set of types. A good first example container is the functor F(X)=Xfor an integer N. This is basically just an array of N elements of type X. We could apply the Leibniz rule repeatedly, but we expect to get the same result as if we'd worked over the reals. So setting f(x)=xwe getSo we know that on types, ΔF(X,Y) = X+XY+...+YThere's a straightforward interpretation we can give this. Differentiating a type makes a hole in it. Finite differencing makes a hole in it, but everything to the left of the hole is of one type and everything on the right is another. For example, for F(X)=X, ΔF(X,Y)=X+XY+Ycan be drawn as:If you've been reading the right papers then at this point it should all become familiar. Finite differencing is none other than dissection, as described by Conor in his Jokers and Clowns paper . I don't know if he was aware that he was talking about finite differences - the paper itself talks about this being a type of derivative. It's sort of implicit when he writes the isomorphism:With a little rearrangement this becomes the definition of finite difference.Now that we've recognised dissection as finite difference we can reason informally about dissection using high school algebra. For example, we already know that lists, defined by L(X) = 1+X L(X) can be informally thought of as L(X)=1/(1-X). So using the example I gave above we see that ΔL(X,Y)=1/((1-X)(1-Y)) = L(X)L(Y). So the dissection of a list is a pair of lists, one for the left elements, and one for the right elements. Just what we'd expect.Another example. Consider the trees defined by T(X)=X+T(X). Informally we can interpret this as T(X)=(1+√(1-4X))/2. A little algebraic manipulation, using (√x-√y)(√x+√y) = x-y shows thatIn other words, a dissection of a tree is a list of trees, each of which is a tree of X or a tree of Y. This corresponds to the fact that if you dissect a tree at some element, and then follow the path from the root to the hole left behind, then all of the left branches (in blue) are trees of type X and all of the right branches (in red) are trees of type Y.If you're geometrically inclined then you can think of types with holes in them as being a kind of tangent to the space of types. Along those lines, dissections become secants. I think this geometric analogy can be taken a lot further and that in fact a non-trivial piece of differential geometry can be made to work with types. But that's for another day.Oh, I almost forgot. Derivatives are what you get when you compute finite differences for points really close to each other. So I hope you can see that Δf(x,x)=df/dx giving us holes in terms of dissections. Conor mentions this in his paper.We should also be able to use this approach to compute finite differences in other algebraic structures that don't have subtraction or division.I can leave you with some exercises:1. What does finite differencing mean when applied to both ordinary and exponential generating functions 2. Can you derive the "chain rule" for finite differences? This can be useful when you compute dissections of types defined by sets of mutually recursive definitions.3. Why is, defined above, a massaged version of the definition of finite difference? (Hint: define d=((f(x)-f(y))/(x-y). In this equation, eliminate the division by a suitable multiplication and eliminate the subtraction by a suitable addition. And remember thatis Haskell notation for the product of types.)