Revision as of 13:00, 24 January 2003 view sourceRochus (talk | contribs)25 editsm introduced the term "termination condition"← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:41, 8 March 2003 view source 212.113.164.99 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Recursion''' is a way of specifying a process by means of itself. More precisely (and to dispel the appearance of circularity in the definition), "complicated" instances of the process are defined in terms of "simpler" instances, and the "simplest" instances are given explicitly. | '''Recursion''' is a way of specifying a process by means of itself. More precisely (and to dispel the appearance of | ||
circularity in the definition), "complicated" instances of the process are defined in terms of "simpler" instances, and the | |||
"simplest" instances are given explicitly. | |||
Examples of mathematical objects often defined recursively are ]s and ]s. | Examples of mathematical objects often defined recursively are ]s and ]s. | ||
Line 27: | Line 31: | ||
#Are we done yet? If so, return the results. Without such a ''termination condition'' a recursion would go on forever. | #Are we done yet? If so, return the results. Without such a ''termination condition'' a recursion would go on forever. | ||
#If not, ''simplify'' the problem, solve those simpler problem(s) by sending them to 1., and assemble the results into a |
#If not, ''simplify'' the problem, solve those simpler problem(s) by sending them to 1., and assemble the results into a | ||
solution for the original problem. Then return that solution. | |||
⚫ | A common method of simplification is to divide the problem into subproblems. Such a programming technique is called |
||
⚫ | A common method of simplification is to divide the problem into subproblems. Such a programming technique is called | ||
Virtually all ] in use today allow the direct specification of recursive functions and procedures. When such a function is called, the computer keeps track of the various instances of the function by using a ]. Conversely, every recursive function can be transformed into an iterative function by using a stack. | |||
''divide-et-impera'' or ''divide and conquer'' and is a fundamental part of ]. | |||
⚫ | Any function that can be evaluated by a computer can be expressed in terms of recursive functions, without use of |
||
⚫ | Indeed, some languages designed for ] and ] provide recursion as the only means |
||
⚫ | |||
Virtually all ] in use today allow the direct specification of recursive | |||
⚫ | Recursion is deeply embedded in the ], with the theoretical equivalence of ]s |
||
functions and procedures. When such a function is called, the computer keeps track of the various instances of the function | |||
by using a ]. Conversely, every recursive function can be transformed into an iterative function by using a stack. | |||
⚫ | Any function that can be evaluated by a computer can be expressed in terms of recursive functions, without use of | ||
]. | |||
⚫ | Indeed, some languages designed for ] and ] provide recursion as the only means | ||
of repetition ''directly'' available to the programmer. | |||
Such languages generally make ] as efficient as iteration, letting programmers express other repetition | |||
⚫ | structures (such as ] <code>map</code> and <code>for</code>) in terms of recursion. | ||
⚫ | Recursion is deeply embedded in the ], with the theoretical equivalence of ]s | ||
and ]s at the foundation of ideas about the universality of the modern computer. | |||
In ] there is a theorem guaranteeing that recursively defined functions exist: | In ] there is a theorem guaranteeing that recursively defined functions exist: | ||
'''The recursion theorem.''' Given a set ''X'', an element ''a'' of ''X'' and a function ''f'' : ''X'' <tt>-></tt> ''X'', there is a unique function ''F'' : '''N''' <tt>-></tt> ''X'' (where '''N''' denotes the set of natural numbers) such that | '''The recursion theorem.''' Given a set ''X'', an element ''a'' of ''X'' and a function ''f'' : ''X'' <tt>-></tt> ''X'', | ||
there is a unique function ''F'' : '''N''' <tt>-></tt> ''X'' (where '''N''' denotes the set of natural numbers) such that | |||
:''F''(0) = ''a'', and | :''F''(0) = ''a'', and | ||
:''F''(''n''+1) = ''f''(''F''(''n'')) for any natural number ''n''. | :''F''(''n''+1) = ''f''(''F''(''n'')) for any natural number ''n''. | ||
'''Proof''' | |||
'''' | |||
''Uniqueness'': | |||
Take two functions ''f'' and ''g'' of domain '''N''' and codomain ''A'' such that: | |||
:''f''(0) = ''a'' | |||
:''g''(0) = ''a'' | |||
:''f''(''n''+1) = ''F''(''f''(''n'')) | |||
:''g''(''n''+1) = ''F''(''g''(''n'')) | |||
where ''a'' is an element of ''A''. We want to prove that f = g. Two functions are equal if they: | |||
:''i''. have equal domains/codomains; | |||
:''ii''. have the same graphic. | |||
:''i''. Done! | |||
:''ii''. ]: for all ''n'' in '''N''', ''f''(''n'') = ''g''(''n'')? (We shall call this condition, say, Eq(''n'')): | |||
::1.:Eq(0) ] ''f''(0) = ''g''(0) iff a = a. Done! | |||
::2.:Let ''n'' be an element of '''N'''. Assuming that Eq(''n'') holds, we want to show that Eq(''n''+1) holds as well, which is easy because: ''f''(''n''+1) = ''F''(''f''(''n'')) = ''F''(''g''(''n'')) = ''g''(''n''+1). Done! | |||
The canonical example of a recursively defined set is the ]: | The canonical example of a recursively defined set is the ]: | ||
Line 59: | Line 100: | ||
:if a proposition can be obtained from true propositions by means of inference rules, it is true. | :if a proposition can be obtained from true propositions by means of inference rules, it is true. | ||
'''' | ''[It needs to be pointed out that determining whether a certain object is in a recursively defined set is not an algorithmic | ||
task]'' | |||
See also: | See also: |
Revision as of 11:41, 8 March 2003
Recursion is a way of specifying a process by means of itself. More precisely (and to dispel the appearance of
circularity in the definition), "complicated" instances of the process are defined in terms of "simpler" instances, and the
"simplest" instances are given explicitly.
Examples of mathematical objects often defined recursively are functions and sets.
The canonical example of a recursively defined function is the following definition of the factorial function f(n):
- f(0) = 1
- f(n) = n · f(n-1) for any natural number n > 0
Given this definition, also called a recurrence relation, we work out f(3) as follows:
f(3) = 3 · f(3-1) = 3 · f(2) = 3 · 2 · f(2-1) = 3 · 2 · f(1) = 3 · 2 · 1 · f(1-1) = 3 · 2 · 1 · f(0) = 3 · 2 · 1 · 1 = 6
Another example is the definition of Fibonacci numbers.
Here is another, perhaps simpler way to understand recursive processes:
- Are we done yet? If so, return the results. Without such a termination condition a recursion would go on forever.
- If not, simplify the problem, solve those simpler problem(s) by sending them to 1., and assemble the results into a
solution for the original problem. Then return that solution.
A common method of simplification is to divide the problem into subproblems. Such a programming technique is called
divide-et-impera or divide and conquer and is a fundamental part of dynamic programming.
Virtually all programming languages in use today allow the direct specification of recursive
functions and procedures. When such a function is called, the computer keeps track of the various instances of the function
by using a stack. Conversely, every recursive function can be transformed into an iterative function by using a stack.
Any function that can be evaluated by a computer can be expressed in terms of recursive functions, without use of
iteration. Indeed, some languages designed for logic programming and functional programming provide recursion as the only means
of repetition directly available to the programmer. Such languages generally make tail recursion as efficient as iteration, letting programmers express other repetition
structures (such as Scheme's map
and for
) in terms of recursion.
Recursion is deeply embedded in the theory of computation, with the theoretical equivalence of recursive functions
and Turing machines at the foundation of ideas about the universality of the modern computer.
In set theory there is a theorem guaranteeing that recursively defined functions exist:
The recursion theorem. Given a set X, an element a of X and a function f : X -> X,
there is a unique function F : N -> X (where N denotes the set of natural numbers) such that
- F(0) = a, and
- F(n+1) = f(F(n)) for any natural number n.
Proof
Uniqueness: Take two functions f and g of domain N and codomain A such that:
- f(0) = a
- g(0) = a
- f(n+1) = F(f(n))
- g(n+1) = F(g(n))
where a is an element of A. We want to prove that f = g. Two functions are equal if they:
- i. have equal domains/codomains;
- ii. have the same graphic.
- i. Done!
- ii. Mathematical induction: for all n in N, f(n) = g(n)? (We shall call this condition, say, Eq(n)):
- 1.:Eq(0) iff f(0) = g(0) iff a = a. Done!
- 2.:Let n be an element of N. Assuming that Eq(n) holds, we want to show that Eq(n+1) holds as well, which is easy because: f(n+1) = F(f(n)) = F(g(n)) = g(n+1). Done!
The canonical example of a recursively defined set is the natural numbers:
- 0 is in N
- if n is in N, then n+1 is in N
The natural numbers can be defined as the smallest set satisfying these two properties.
Another interesting example is the set of all true propositions in an axiomatic system.
- if a proposition is an axiom, it is true.
- if a proposition can be obtained from true propositions by means of inference rules, it is true.
[It needs to be pointed out that determining whether a certain object is in a recursively defined set is not an algorithmic
task]
See also: