Summing "Large" Nat's - scala

Given:
scala> import shapeless.nat.
_0 _10 _12 _14 _16 _18 _2 _21 _3 _5 _7 _9 natOps
_1 _11 _13 _15 _17 _19 _20 _22 _4 _6 _8 apply toInt
scala> import shapeless.ops.nat._
import shapeless.ops.nat._
After > 3 minutes, the following code has not compiled/run. Why's that?
scala> Sum[_22, _22]
Also, looking at the above REPL auto-completion, does _44 even exist in shapeless?

Why is it so slow?
Let's start with a smaller number. When you ask for Sum[_4, _4], the compiler is going to go looking for an instance, and it'll find these two methods:
implicit def sum1[B <: Nat]: Aux[_0, B, B] = new Sum[_0, B] { type Out = B }
implicit def sum2[A <: Nat, B <: Nat](implicit
sum: Sum[A, Succ[B]]
): Aux[Succ[A], B, sum.Out] = new Sum[Succ[A], B] { type Out = sum.Out }
The first one is clearly out since _4 is not _0. It knows that _4 is the same as Succ[_3] (more on that in a second), so it'll try sum2 with A as _3 and B as _4.
This means we need to find a Sum[_3, _5] instance. sum1 is out for similar reasons as before, so we try sum2 again, this time with A = _2 and B = _5, which means we need a Sum[_2, _6], which gets us back to sum2, with A = _1 and B = _6, which sends us looking for a Sum[_1, _7]. This is the last time we'll use sum2, with A = _0 and B = _7. This time when we go looking for a Sum[_0, _8] we'll hit sum1 and we're done.
So it's clear that for n + n we're going to have to do n + 1 implicit searches, and during each one the compiler is going to be doing type equality checks and other stuff (update: see Miles's answer for an explanation of what the biggest problem here is) that requires traversing the structure of the Nat types, so we're in exponential land. The compiler really, really isn't designed to work efficiently with types like this, which means that even for small numbers, this operation is going to take a long time.
Side note 1: implementation in Shapeless
Off the top of my head I'm not entirely sure why sum2 isn't defined like this:
implicit def sum2[A <: Nat, B <: Nat](implicit
sum: Sum[A, B]
): Aux[Succ[A], B, Succ[sum.Out]] = new Sum[Succ[A], B] { type Out = Succ[sum.Out] }
This is much faster, at least on my machine, where Sum[_18, _18] compiles in four seconds as opposed to seven minutes and counting.
Side note 2: induction heuristics
This doesn't seem to be a case where Typelevel Scala's -Yinduction-heuristics helps—I just tried compiling Shapeless with the #inductive annotation on Sum and it's still seems pretty much exactly as horribly slow as without it.
What about 44?
The _1, _2, _3 type aliases are defined in code produced by this boilerplate generator in Shapeless, which is configured only to produce values up to 22. In this case specifically, this is an entirely arbitrary limit. We can write the following, for example:
type _23 = Succ[_22]
And we've done exactly the same thing the code generator does, but going one step further.
It doesn't really matter much that Shapeless's _N aliases stop at 22, though, since they're just aliases. The important thing about a Nat is its structure, and that's independent of any nice names we might have for it. Even if Shapeless didn't provide any _N aliases at all, we could still write code like this:
import shapeless.Succ, shapeless.nat._0, shapeless.ops.nat.Sum
Sum[Succ[Succ[_0]], Succ[Succ[_0]]]
And it would be exactly the same as writing Sum[_2, _2], except that it's a lot more annoying to type.
So when you write Sum[_22, _22] the compiler isn't going to have any trouble representing the result type (i.e. 44 Succs around a _0), even though it doesn't have a _44 type alias.

Following on from Travis's excellent answer, it appears that it's the use of the member type in the definition of sum2 which is the root of the problem. With the following definition of Sum and its instances,
trait Sum[A <: Nat, B <: Nat] extends Serializable { type Out <: Nat }
object Sum {
def apply[A <: Nat, B <: Nat](implicit sum: Sum[A, B]): Aux[A, B, sum.Out] = sum
type Aux[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, C <: Nat] = Sum[A, B] { type Out = C }
implicit def sum1[B <: Nat]: Aux[_0, B, B] = new Sum[_0, B] { type Out = B }
implicit def sum2[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, C <: Nat]
(implicit sum : Sum.Aux[A, Succ[B], C]): Aux[Succ[A], B, C] =
new Sum[Succ[A], B] { type Out = C }
}
which replaces the use of the member type with an additional type variable, the compile time is 0+noise on my machine both with and without -Yinduction-heurisitics.
I think that the issue we're seeing is a pathological case for subtyping with member types.
Aside from that, the induction is so small that I wouldn't actually expect -Yinduction-heurisitics to make much of an improvement.
Update now fixed in shapeless.

Related

How to ask Scala if evidence exists for all instantiations of type parameter?

Given the following type-level addition function on Peano numbers
sealed trait Nat
class O extends Nat
class S[N <: Nat] extends Nat
type plus[a <: Nat, b <: Nat] = a match
case O => b
case S[n] => S[n plus b]
say we want to prove theorem like
for all natural numbers n, n + 0 = n
which perhaps can be specified like so
type plus_n_0 = [n <: Nat] =>> (n plus O) =:= n
then when it comes to providing evidence for theorem we can easily ask Scala compiler for evidence in particular cases
summon[plus_n_O[S[S[O]]]] // ok, 2 + 0 = 2
but how can we ask Scala if it can generate evidence for all instantiations of [n <: Nat], thus providing proof of plus_n_0?
Here is one possible approach, which is an attempt at a literal interpretation of this paragraph:
When proving a statement E:N→U about all natural numbers, it suffices to prove it for 0 and for succ(n), assuming it holds for n, i.e., we construct ez:E(0) and es:∏(n:N)E(n)→E(succ(n)).
from the HoTT book (section 5.1).
Here is the plan of what was implemented in the code below:
Formulate what it means to have a proof for a statement that "Some property P holds for all natural numbers". Below, we will use
trait Forall[N, P[n <: N]]:
inline def apply[n <: N]: P[n]
where the signature of the apply-method essentially says "for all n <: N, we can generate evidence of P[n]".
Note that the method is declared to be inline. This is one possible way to ensure that the proof of ∀n.P(n) is constructive and executable at runtime (However, see edit history for alternative proposals with manually generated witness terms).
Postulate some sort of induction principle for natural numbers. Below, we will use the following formulation:
If
P(0) holds, and
whenever P(i) holds, then also P(i + 1) holds,
then
For all `n`, P(n) holds
I believe that it should be possible to derive such induction principles using some metaprogramming facilities.
Write proofs for the base case and the induction case of the induction principle.
???
Profit
The code then looks like this:
sealed trait Nat
class O extends Nat
class S[N <: Nat] extends Nat
type plus[a <: Nat, b <: Nat] <: Nat = a match
case O => b
case S[n] => S[n plus b]
trait Forall[N, P[n <: N]]:
inline def apply[n <: N]: P[n]
trait NatInductionPrinciple[P[n <: Nat]] extends Forall[Nat, P]:
def base: P[O]
def step: [i <: Nat] => (P[i] => P[S[i]])
inline def apply[n <: Nat]: P[n] =
(inline compiletime.erasedValue[n] match
case _: O => base
case _: S[pred] => step(apply[pred])
).asInstanceOf[P[n]]
given liftCoUpperbounded[U, A <: U, B <: U, S[_ <: U]](using ev: A =:= B):
(S[A] =:= S[B]) = ev.liftCo[[X] =>> Any].asInstanceOf[S[A] =:= S[B]]
type NatPlusZeroEqualsNat[n <: Nat] = (n plus O) =:= n
def trivialLemma[i <: Nat]: ((S[i] plus O) =:= S[i plus O]) =
summon[(S[i] plus O) =:= S[i plus O]]
object Proof extends NatInductionPrinciple[NatPlusZeroEqualsNat]:
val base = summon[(O plus O) =:= O]
val step: ([i <: Nat] => NatPlusZeroEqualsNat[i] => NatPlusZeroEqualsNat[S[i]]) =
[i <: Nat] => (p: NatPlusZeroEqualsNat[i]) =>
given previousStep: ((i plus O) =:= i) = p
given liftPreviousStep: (S[i plus O] =:= S[i]) =
liftCoUpperbounded[Nat, i plus O, i, S]
given definitionalEquality: ((S[i] plus O) =:= S[i plus O]) =
trivialLemma[i]
definitionalEquality.andThen(liftPreviousStep)
def demoNat(): Unit = {
println("Running demoNat...")
type two = S[S[O]]
val ev = Proof[two]
val twoInstance: two = new S[S[O]]
println(ev(twoInstance) == twoInstance)
}
It compiles, runs, and prints:
true
meaning that we have successfully invoked the recursively defined
method on the executable evidence-term of type two plus O =:= two.
Some further comments
The trivialLemma was necessary so that summons inside of other givens don't accidentally generate recursive loops, which is a bit annoying.
The separate liftCo-method for S[_ <: U] was needed, because =:=.liftCo does not allow type constructors with upper-bounded type parameters.
compiletime.erasedValue + inline match is awesome! It automatically generates some sort of runtime-gizmos that allow us to do pattern matching on an "erased" type. Before I found this out, I was attempting to construct appropriate witness terms manually, but this does not seem necessary at all, it's provided for free (see edit history for the approach with manually constructed witness terms).

List of Nat of Fixed Size and Element Bounds

Using shapeless, I'm trying to define a function:
import shapeless._
import ops.nat._
import nat._
def threeNatsLessThan3[N <: Nat](xs: Sized[List[N], N])
(implicit ev: LTEq[N, _3]) = ???
where it will only compile if the input xs is a List (of sized 3) of Nat where each element is <= 3.
But that fails to compile:
scala> threeNatsLessThan3[_3](List(_1,_2,_3))
<console>:22: error: type mismatch;
found : List[shapeless.Succ[_ >: shapeless.Succ[shapeless.Succ[shapeless._0]] with shapeless.Succ[shapeless._0] with shapeless._0 <: Serializable with shapeless.Nat]]
required: shapeless.Sized[List[shapeless.nat._3],shapeless.nat._3]
(which expands to) shapeless.Sized[List[shapeless.Succ[shapeless.Succ[shapeless.Succ[shapeless._0]]]],shapeless.Succ[shapeless.Succ[shapeless.Succ[shapeless._0]]]]a>
twoNatsFirstLtEqSecond[_3](List(_1,_2,_3))
^
How can I implement the above function correctly?
Also I would appreciate a solution using an HList too, where the HList consists only of Nat elements (if possible).
What you're typing as the signature is a List of size N which contains only elements of type N. To whit, Sized[List[N], N] denotes one of the following: List(_1), List(_2, _2), or finally List(_3, _3, _3), taking into consideration your type level constraint. That's almost what you want and explains the error the compiler is giving you:
required: shapeless.Sized[List[shapeless.nat._3],shapeless.nat._3]
To begin breaking down what you want to accomplish we need to note that you can't have a List[Nat] and also preserve the individual types. The abstractness of Nat would obscure them. So if you want to do things at compile time, you're going to have three choices: work with an HList, choose to fix the type of Nat within the list so that you have List[N] or choose to fix the size of the List[Nat] with Sized.
If you want to say that the List has size less than 3, then
def lessThanThree[N <: Nat](sz: Sized[List[Nat], N])(implicit ev: LTEq[N, _3]) = sz
If you want to say that the List has a Nat of less than three, again with a fixed N within the List:
def lessThanThree[N <: Nat, M <: Nat](sz: Sized[List[N], M])(implicit ev: LTEq[N, _3]) = sz
If you're looking to perhaps work with a Poly where you could define an at for any Nat such that it preserves the LTEq constraint, you'll need to understand that Sized does make working with map conform closer to the standard package map found on most collections, i.e. it requires a CanBuildFrom. That combined with the erasure of the individual Nat in List means that you'll have a lot of difficulty coming up with a solution which gives you the type of flexibility you're looking for.
If you were to work with an HList, you could do the following:
object LT3Identity extends Poly{
implicit def only[N <: Nat](implicit ev: LTEq[N, _3]) = at[N]{ i => i}
}
def lt3[L <: HList, M <: Nat](ls: L)(implicit lg: Length.Aux[L, M], lt: LTEq[M, _3]) = ls.map(LT3Identity)
which does both constrain your size of the Hlist to less than 3 while also only allowing HList that contain Nat of less than or equal to 3.

How to extract an element from an HList with a specific (parameterized) type

I'm chaining transformations, and I'd like to accumulate the result of each transformation so that it can potentially be used in any subsequent step, and also so that all the results are available at the end (mostly for debugging purposes). There are several steps and from time to time I need to add a new step or change the inputs for a step.
HList seems to offer a convenient way to collect the results in a flexible but still type-safe way. But I'd rather not complicate the actual steps by making them deal with the HList and the accompanying business.
Here's a simplified version of the combinator I'd like to write, which isn't working. The idea is that given an HList containing an A, and the index of A, and a function from A -> B, mapNth will extract the A, run the function, and cons the result onto the list. The resulting extended list captures the type of the new result, so several of these mapNth-ified steps can be composed to produce a list containing the result from each step:
def mapNth[L <: HList, A, B]
(l: L, index: Nat, f: A => B)
(implicit at: shapeless.ops.hlist.At[L, index.N]):
B :: L =
f(l(index)) :: l
Incidentally, I'll also need map2Nth taking two indices and f: (A, B) => C, but I believe the issues are the same.
However, mapNth does not compile, saying l(index) has type at.Out, but f's argument should be A. That's correct, of course, so what I suppose I need is a way to provide evidence that at.Out is in fact A (or, at.Out <: A).
Is there a way to express that constraint? I believe it will have to take the form of an implicit, because of course the constraint can only be checked when mapNth is applied to a particular list and function.
You're exactly right about needing evidence that at.Out is A, and you can provide that evidence by including the value of the type member in at's type:
def mapNth[L <: HList, A, B]
(l: L, index: Nat, f: A => B)
(implicit at: shapeless.ops.hlist.At[L, index.N] { type Out = A }):
B :: L =
f(l(index)) :: l
The companion objects for type classes like At in Shapeless also define an Aux type that includes the output type as a final type parameter.
def mapNth[L <: HList, A, B]
(l: L, index: Nat, f: A => B)
(implicit at: shapeless.ops.hlist.At.Aux[L, index.N, A]):
B :: L =
f(l(index)) :: l
This is pretty much equivalent but more idiomatic (and it looks a little nicer).

How can I customize Scala ambiguous implicit errors when using shapeless type inequalities

def typeSafeSum[T <: Nat, W <: Nat, R <: Nat](x: T, y: W)
(implicit sum: Sum.Aux[T, W, R], error: R =:!= _7) = x
typeSafeSum(_3, _4) //compilation error, ambiguous implicit found.
I dont think that error message "ambiguous implicit found" is friendly, how can I customize it to say something like "the sum of 2 NAT value should not equal to 7"
Many thanks in advance
shapeless's =:!= (and similar type inequality operators) inherently exploit ambiguous implicits to encode Prolog-style negation as failure. And, as you've observed, Scala doesn't have a mechanism which allows library authors to provide more meaningful error messages when ambiguity is expected. Perhaps it should, or perhaps Scala should provide a more direct representation of the negation of a type making this encoding unnecessary.
Given that you've couched the question in terms of Nats I think it's probably reasonable that you're trying to work with type inequality. If it weren't Nats my recommendation in answer to another question that a type class directly encoding the relation of interest would apply here too. As it is though, I recommend that same solution as a workaround for not being able to provide better error messages.
import shapeless._, nat._, ops.nat._
#annotation.implicitNotFound(msg = "${A} + ${B} = ${N}")
trait SumNotN[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, N <: Nat]
object SumNotN {
implicit def sumNotN[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, R <: Nat, N <: Nat]
(implicit sum: Sum.Aux[A, B, R], error: R =:!= N): SumNotN[A, B, N] =
new SumNotN[A, B, N] {}
}
def typeSafeSum[T <: Nat, W <: Nat](x: T, y: W)
(implicit valid: SumNotN[T, W, _7]) = x
scala> typeSafeSum(_3, _4)
<console>:20: error: shapeless.nat._3 + shapeless.nat._4 = shapeless.nat._7
typeSafeSum(_3, _4)
^
The technique (hiding an expected ambiguous implicit behind an implicit we expect to be not found in the case of underlying ambiguity) is generally applicable, but is obviously fairly heavyweight ... another reason why type inequalities should be avoided if at all possible.

Int value of Prod in shapeless

Playing around with shapeless natural numbers in excitement, I wonder what could be the best approach to getting the integer value of e.g. a product of nats.
Excerpt from shapeless nat.scala:
trait Prod[A <: Nat, B <: Nat] {
type Out <: Nat
}
trait ProdAux[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, C <: Nat]
object Prod {
implicit def prod[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, C <: Nat](implicit diff : ProdAux[A, B, C]) = new Prod[A, B] {
type Out = C
}
}
object ProdAux {
import Nat._0
implicit def prod1[B <: Nat] = new ProdAux[_0, B, _0] {}
implicit def prod2[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, C <: Nat, D <: Nat]
(implicit ev1 : ProdAux[A, B, C], ev2 : SumAux[B, C, D]) = new ProdAux[Succ[A], B, D] {}
}
So far I've come up with the straightforward definition of
def toInt[A <: Nat, B <: Nat, C <: Nat](p: Prod[A, B])
(implicit paux: ProdAux[A, B, C], iv: ToInt[C]): Int = iv()
As a matter of fact that approach would require somewhat redundant implementations of the equivalent code for e.g. sums, diffs, factorials etc. So I'd rather be able to use the "default" method toInt[A <: Nat].
How would you do it? And is it possible to use the inner types (Prod#Out, Sum#Out, ...)?
Sorry I missed this question earlier (BTW, the shapeless mailing list is a good place to ask this kind of question).
I think you've slightly misunderstood the role of the Prod type class: its instances aren't themselves Nats, they're witnesses of a relation holding between three Nats, namely that (A * B) == C. As such, it doesn't really make all that much sense to convert Prod instances to Ints. Or rather, if it did, it'd make just as much sense for the resulting value to correspond to any of A, B or C, or the triple of all of them.
For use as proof terms in method definitions, the style you've shown is pretty much as intended ... see here for an example. Clearly though, this doesn't work very well for playing around with things on the REPL. To make that a bit smoother you could try things along the lines of,
def prod[A <: Nat, B <: Nat](implicit prod : Prod[A, B]) =
new { def toInt(implicit ti : ToInt[prod.Out]) = ti() }
which allows REPL interactions like,
scala> prod[_2, _3].toInt
res0: Int = 6
If this still isn't quite what you're after then please head over to the mailing list and sketch out what you'd like to be able to do.