Comment by marvinborner
Comment by marvinborner 2 days ago
Ah yes, you're right. I messed up the associativity in the reductions.
(2 b) ~> λhgfx.(h ((g f) x))
(3 b) ~> λihgfx.(i (((h g) f) x))
...
It still does what most interpretations would consider the "nth composition combinator": (1 b f g) x = f (g x)
(2 b f g) x y = f (g x y)
(3 b f g) x y z = f (g x y z)
...
Okay, you've definitely nerd-sniped me here. Actually producing my initial reductions is not as trivial as I thought. Still, I came up with a solution that works for n>2:
Here I use de Bruijn indices instead of named variables and write Church numerals as <n>.Then,
I could explain it in detail if anyone's interested. There should be some more elegant solutions though, so give it a try!