Talk:Phase semantics
(→Preliminaries: relations and closures) |
(→Phase semantics: new section) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
-- [[User:Pierre Hyvernat|Pierre Hyvernat]] 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
-- [[User:Pierre Hyvernat|Pierre Hyvernat]] 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | == Phase semantics == |
||
| + | |||
| + | ===Realisability=== |
||
| + | |||
| + | I put the remark |
||
| + | |||
| + | :{{Remark| |
||
| + | :Some people say that this idea of orthogonality was implicitly present in Tait's proof of strong normalisation. More recently, Jean-Louis Krivine and Alexandre Miquel have used the idea explicitly to do realisability...}} |
||
| + | |||
| + | at the end of the subsection "multiplicative connectives". |
||
| + | |||
| + | Has anybody heard the same about Tait proof and biorthogonal? |
||
| + | |||
| + | -- [[User:Pierre Hyvernat|Pierre Hyvernat]] 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:13, 8 February 2009
Contents |
Preliminaries: relations and closures
References
I think everything I write in the preliminaries can be found in Birkhoff, "Lattice theory". Can anyone check? (I don't think I have easy access to a copy.
In particular, I think xR was written 
, with the relation R being implicit.
If so, we should add a reference to that.
-- Pierre Hyvernat 11:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Notation
The refinement calculus people use the relation in the reverse order: what I write 
, they write 
. (The same is true of [R].) I find it confusing, and since this is hardly "standard" notation one way or the other, I don't think this is important...
-- Pierre Hyvernat 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Phase semantics
Realisability
I put the remark
- Remark:
- Some people say that this idea of orthogonality was implicitly present in Tait's proof of strong normalisation. More recently, Jean-Louis Krivine and Alexandre Miquel have used the idea explicitly to do realisability...
at the end of the subsection "multiplicative connectives".
Has anybody heard the same about Tait proof and biorthogonal?
-- Pierre Hyvernat 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
