4 ms·

I’m having difficulty following your comments about adversarial choice as related to the axiom of choice. What you’re saying doesn’t sound well-defined (in the

I’m having difficulty following your comments about adversarial choice as related to the axiom of choice. What you’re saying doesn’t sound well-defined (in the mathematical sense).

adamnemecek 8y ago
It's actually very well defined (or which part are you confused by). I'm stating these things informally as a formal treatment is right now beyond me and it also doesn't really exist. Look up Chu spaces esp their relationship to linear logic. This paper is pretty informative https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chu-spaces-as-a-semantic-bridge-between-linear-and-Pratt/3bf444cc4a892eccfa4f51064c4b85079acfbcd8 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chu-spaces-as-a-semant... Fundamentally, think of the minimax algorithm. You have two sides each optimizing for victory.
- YorkshireSeason 8y ago
  I don't see how Pratt's paper justifies any of your claims.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    Can you give me the summary of the paper?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  "It's actually very well defined" and "a formal treatment... doesn't really exist" seem to me to be contradictory statements.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    It's a path that unifies several very formally related. The unification itself isn't fully formalized, you need to look at the symmetries in the well formalized subparts.