Talk:Phase semantics
(Undo revision 541 by Olivier Laurent (Talk) wrong comment) |
(→LaTeX parsing: server update moved to old version of texvc) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
-- [[User:Pierre Hyvernat|Pierre Hyvernat]] 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
-- [[User:Pierre Hyvernat|Pierre Hyvernat]] 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | == LaTeX parsing == |
||
| − | |||
| − | LaTeX is doing strange things and refuses to parse correct sentences. Any clues, someone? [[User:Pierre-Marie Pédrot|Pierre-Marie Pédrot]] 15:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 09:13, 22 October 2011
Contents |
[edit] Preliminaries: relations and closures
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Phase semantics
[edit] 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)
