I remember I got a little confused when I was first learning TLA+, because what you normally call "functions" are "operators" [1], and what you'd normally call "maps" or "lists" are called "functions".
It was odd to me, because it hadn't really occurred to me before that, given infinite memory (and within a mathematical framework), there's fundamentally not necessarily a difference between a "list" and a "function". With pure functions, you could in "theoretical-land", replace any "function" with an array, where the "argument" is replaced with an index.
And it makes sense to me now; TLA+ functions can be defined like maps or lists, but they can also be defined in terms of operations to create the values in the function. For example, you could define the first N factorials like
Fact == <<1, 2, 6, 24, 120>>
or like this:
Fact[n \in Nat] ==
IF n = 0 THEN 1
ELSE n * Fact[n - 1]
in both cases, if you wanted to get the factorial of 5, you'd call Fact[5], and that's on purpose because ultimately from TLA+'s perspective
they are equivalent.
[1] At least sort of; they superficially look like functions but they're closer to hygienic macros.
It was odd to me, because it hadn't really occurred to me before that, given infinite memory (and within a mathematical framework), there's fundamentally not necessarily a difference between a "list" and a "function". With pure functions, you could in "theoretical-land", replace any "function" with an array, where the "argument" is replaced with an index.
And it makes sense to me now; TLA+ functions can be defined like maps or lists, but they can also be defined in terms of operations to create the values in the function. For example, you could define the first N factorials like
or like this: in both cases, if you wanted to get the factorial of 5, you'd call Fact[5], and that's on purpose because ultimately from TLA+'s perspective they are equivalent.[1] At least sort of; they superficially look like functions but they're closer to hygienic macros.