tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post8237604777329296040..comments2014-08-17T09:30:19.334-07:00Comments on A Neighborhood of Infinity: Automatic Divided DifferencesDan Piponihttps://plus.google.com/107913314994758123748noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-55194978639766951112010-09-18T10:50:00.458-07:002010-09-18T10:50:00.458-07:00Have you looked at differential Galois theory? It ...Have you looked at differential Galois theory? It seems that could provide answers since the type derivation that makes zippers "obvious" fits the criteria for a derivation on the ring (field?) of Haskell types.Nimishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03484746184969634219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-35764721804850950212010-08-01T23:23:03.826-07:002010-08-01T23:23:03.826-07:00Ah, I didn't match parentheses. Thanks!Ah, I didn't match parentheses. Thanks!Trevorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08285598142104295284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-41258380047111277252010-08-01T08:56:50.180-07:002010-08-01T08:56:50.180-07:00Trevor,
I factored out a 0.5 which may be what is...Trevor,<br /><br />I factored out a 0.5 which may be what is leading you to think the definition of (*) differs from the formula I gave a few lines earlier. So I think the code is correct.sigfpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08096190433222340957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-71638215552947572252010-08-01T08:52:01.861-07:002010-08-01T08:52:01.861-07:00Is there a 0.5 missing from the (*) definition for...Is there a 0.5 missing from the (*) definition for the Num instance of D?Trevorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08285598142104295284noreply@blogger.com