3 ms·
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 als
by 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 agoI don't see how Pratt's paper justifies any of your claims.
- adamnemecek 8y agoCan 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 agoIt'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.