Révision 157 CSL17/conclusions.tex

conclusions.tex (revision 157)
1
\section{Conclusions}
1
\section{Conclusions}
2

  
3
\subsection{Why not modal?}
4
We have used a two-sorted approach, although we believe that this can be implemented as a modal approach.
5
The exposition is a little more complicated, since we will need to rely on proof theory more than local syntax where all variables have declared sorts, however the reasoning in such a theory is likely more elegant.
6

  
7
\anupam{One problem: how to deal formally with something like $\Box N (\succ i (;x^N)) $, i.e.\ where $x$ is safe.}
8
\anupam{Actually, not a problem after all. What we actually have is $N(x) \seqar N(\succ i (;x))$, so we can only have $\Box N(\succ i (;x))$ if $\Box N(x)$.}
9

  
10
\anupam{Also, maybe no clear free-cut elimination result? Well no, can probably use Cantini as example.}
11

  
12
\anupam{By the way, Cantini asks for the provably total function of arbitrary safe induction. We kind of answer that with `PH'.}
13

  
14
\subsection{Comparison to PVi and Si2}
15
We believe our theories can be embedded into their analogues, again generalising results of Bellantoni.

Formats disponibles : Unified diff