q2K BHP
Black History Portal
THE BHP WIRE —
HIDDEN TRUTHS
What's New!
THE JOURNEY THROUGH TIME

Explore Black History

Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.

✊🏾

Civil Rights

Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.

⚙️

Black Inventors

Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.

🏆

Sports

Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.

♟️

People

Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.

📍

Places

Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.

📜

Events

Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.

Enter a person, place, event, or topic.
MY'STORY

The MOVE Fire

This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985 Philadelphia police fired thousands of rounds at the MOVE house, city officials approved dropping an explosive device on the roof, the resulting fire was allowed to burn, 11 people—including five children—died, and 61 homes were destroyed. Philadelphia City Council later called it a “brutal attack carried out by the City of Philadelphia on its own citizens” and acknowledged that no individual faced criminal consequences for the bombing. One timeline correction worth preserving for the BHP record: the major previous MOVE-police confrontation was August 8, 1978, about seven years before the bombing, not a year or two earlier. Officer James Ramp was killed, other police and firefighters were wounded, nine MOVE members were later convicted, and television cameras recorded police beating Delbert Africa during his arrest. The 1985 MOVE Commission later specifically criticized city planners for failing to adequately use lessons from that 1978 confrontation. And that actually strengthens the point you’re making: 1985 did not happen without precedent or institutional memory. There had already been a deadly confrontation with MOVE, years of conflict, negotiations and police involvement before Osage Avenue.

MORE →
BLACK FACTS
The Truths They Never Taught You...

Katherine Johnson — Mathematics to the Moon

Katherine Johnson’s mathematical calculations helped guide some of America’s most important early space missions while she confronted the racial and gender barriers faced by Black women in twentieth-century America.

MORE →
BHP gathered finds from its connected research sources. Showing the 4 strongest Black History matches.
← BACK TO RESULTS
Wikipedia

Bounded quantification

In type theory, bounded quantification (also bounded polymorphism or constrained genericity) refers to universal or existential quantifiers which are restricted ("bounded") to range only over the subtypes of a particular type. Bounded quantification is an interaction of parametric polymorphism with subtyping. Bounded quantification has traditionally been studied in the functional setting of System F<:, but is available in modern object-oriented languages supporting parametric polymorphism (generics) such as Java, C# and Scala.

Overview

[edit]

The purpose of bounded quantification is to allow for polymorphic functions to depend on some specific behaviour of objects instead of type inheritance. It assumes a record-based model for object classes, where every class member is a record element and all class members are named functions. Object attributes are represented as functions that take no argument and return an object. The specific behaviour is then some function name along with the types of the arguments and the return type. Bounded quantification considers all objects with such a function. An example would be a polymorphic min function that considers all objects that are comparable to each other.[citation needed]

F-bounded quantification

[edit]

-bounded quantification or recursively bounded quantification, introduced in 1989, allows for more precise typing of functions that are applied on recursive types. A recursive type is one that features as a constructor a function that uses it as a type for some argument, or the return value of a functional argument, or some argument of the functional return value of a functional argument, or so on: that is, in positive position.[1]

Example

[edit]

This kind of type constraint can be expressed in Java with a generic interface. The following example demonstrates how to describe types that can be compared to each other and use this as typing information in polymorphic functions. The Test::min function uses simple bounded quantification and does not ensure the objects are mutually comparable, in contrast with the Test::fMin function which uses -bounded quantification.

In mathematical notation, the types of the two functions are

where

Consider the following possible declarations in java.lang:

package java.lang;

public interface Comparable<T> {
    int compareTo(T other);
}

public class Integer implements Comparable<Integer> {
    @Override
    public int compareTo(Integer other) {
        // ...
    }
}

public class String implements Comparable<String> {
    @Override
    public int compareTo(String other) {
        // ...
    }
}

Then, in use:

package org.wikipedia.examples;

public class Test {
    public static <S extends Comparable> S min(S a, S b) {
        if (a.compareTo(b) <= 0) {
            return a;
        } else {
            return b;
        }
    }

    public static <T extends Comparable<T>> T fMin(T a, T b) {
        if (a.compareTo(b) <= 0) {
            return a;
        } else {
            return b;
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String a = min("cat", "dog");
        Integer b = min(10, 3);
        Comparable c = min("cat", 3); // Throws java.lang.ClassCastException at runtime
        String str = fMin("cat", "dog");
        Integer i = fMin(10, 3);
        // Object o = fMin("cat", 3); // Does not compile
    }
}

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ F-bounded polymorphism for object-oriented programming. Canning, Cook, Hill, Olthof and Mitchell. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=99392

References

[edit]
  • Cardelli, Luca; Wegner, Peter (December 1985). "On Understanding Types, Data Abstraction, and Polymorphism" (PDF). ACM Computing Surveys. 17 (4): 471–523. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.117.695. doi:10.1145/6041.6042. ISSN 0360-0300. S2CID 2921816. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |citeseerx= (help)
  • Peter S. Canning, William R. Cook, Walter L. Hill, John C. Mitchell, and William Olthoff. "F-bounded polymorphism for object-oriented programming". In Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, 1989.
  • Benjamin C. Pierce "Intersection types and bounded polymorphism". Lecture Notes in Computer Science 664, 1993.
  • Gilad Bracha, Martin Odersky, David Stoutamire, and Philip Wadler. "Making the future safe for the past: Adding genericity to the Java programming language". In Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, October 1998.
  • Andrew Kennedy and Don Syme. "Design and Implementation of Generics for the .NET Common Language Runtime". In Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2001.
  • Pierce, Benjamin C. (2002). Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-16209-8., Chapter 26: Bounded quantification
[edit]

Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.

No preview image
Wikipedia

On Interpretation

On Interpretation (Greek: Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, Peri Hermeneias) is the second text from Aristotle's Organon and is among the earliest surviving philosophical works in the Western tradition to deal with the relationship between language and logic in a comprehensive, explicit, and formal way. The work begins by analyzing simple categoric propositions, and draws a series of basic conclusions on the routine issues of classifying and defining basic linguistic forms, such as simple terms and propositions, nouns and verbs, negation, the quantity of simple propositions (primitive roots of the quantifiers in modern symbolic logic), investigations on the excluded middle (which to Aristotle is not applicable to future tense propositions—the problem of future contingents), and on modal propositions. From the work comes the idea of Apophansis' (Greek: ἀπόφανσις), which considers the nature of nouns and verbs and how they might be combined as a proposition, which is the combination of a subject a noun, a verb, and a tense that can be either outright credible (κατάφασις kataphasis) or not (ἀπόφημι apophasis). The first five chapters deal with the terms that form propositions. Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the relationship between affirmative, negative, universal and particular propositions. These relationships are the basis of the well-known square of opposition. The distinction between universal and particular propositions is the basis of modern quantification theory. The last three chapters deal with modalities. Chapter 9 is famous for the discussion of the sea-battle. (If it is true that there will be a sea-battle tomorrow, then it is true today that there will be a sea-battle. Thus a sea-battle is apparently unavoidable, and thus necessary. Another interpretation would be: that we cannot know that which has not yet come to pass. In other words: if there is a sea battle tomorrow then it is true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle. So, only if we can know whether or not there will be a sea battle tomorrow then can we know if there will be a sea battle).

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Universal instantiation

In predicate logic, universal instantiation (UI; also called universal specification or universal elimination, and sometimes confused with dictum de omni) is a valid rule of inference from a truth about each member of a class of individuals to the truth about a particular individual of that class. It is generally given as a quantification rule for the universal quantifier but it can also be encoded in an axiom schema. It is one of the basic principles used in quantification theory. Example: "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal." Formally, the rule as an axiom schema is given as ∀ x A ⇒ A { x ↦ t } , {\displaystyle \forall x\,A\Rightarrow A\{x\mapsto t\},} for every formula A and every term t, where A { x ↦ t } {\displaystyle A\{x\mapsto t\}} is the result of substituting t for each free occurrence of x in A. A { x ↦ t } {\displaystyle \,A\{x\mapsto t\}} is an instance of ∀ x A . {\displaystyle \forall x\,A.} And as a rule of inference it is from ⊢ ∀ x A {\displaystyle \vdash \forall xA} infer ⊢ A { x ↦ t } . {\displaystyle \vdash A\{x\mapsto t\}.} Irving Copi noted that universal instantiation "...follows from variants of rules for 'natural deduction', which were devised independently by Gerhard Gentzen and Stanisław Jaśkowski in 1934."

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Plural quantification

In mathematics and logic, plural quantification is the theory that an individual variable x may take on plural, as well as singular, values. As well as substituting individual objects such as Alice, the number 1, the tallest building in London etc. for x, we may substitute both Alice and Bob, or all the numbers between 0 and 10, or all the buildings in London over 20 stories. The point of the theory is to give first-order logic the power of set theory, but without any "existential commitment" to such objects as sets. The classic expositions are Boolos 1984 and Lewis 1991.

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Bounded quantification

In type theory, bounded quantification (also bounded polymorphism or constrained genericity) refers to universal or existential quantifiers which are restricted ("bounded") to range only over the subtypes of a particular type. Bounded quantification is an interaction of parametric polymorphism with subtyping. Bounded quantification has traditionally been studied in the functional setting of System F

MORE →
TOPIC OF THE DAY

Greenwood / Black Wall Street

Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.

MORE →
TRIVIA QUESTION OF THE DAY

Which Black woman became the first elected to the United States Congress?

Shirley Chisholm, elected in 1968.