3 ms·

Utilizing Girard-Reynolds constraints on a polymorphic push-down automata fundamentally misconstrues both computational topology and dynamic system semantics..

• benreesman 2y ago
  The ability to checkpoint the precise state of an agent interaction, bound it above by that context, evaluate within the context is trivially useful. It’s a bit of poetic license maybe to call that a push down automata. What I mean by the analogy is that systems ranging from BERTopic to the Humanify JS de-minifier employ large, positive-temp LLM-style models in bounded ways, for better outcomes, in conjunction with deterministic techniques. In fact, in the case of Humanify, push-down automata are trivially involved via the PLT in the conventional de-compilation. Girard-Reynolds is again a bit of an analogy though not without plausible concrete application: even post-softmax in a GPT there are useful types one can imagine as being amenable to parametric polymorphism and therefore dictating their implementations. If your comment is roughly: “that’s not literally sound as stated”, point conceded, it’s a one-sentence allusion to real rigor, not real rigor itself. Do you find any of that controversial?