The idea behind the new translation is you can squeeze the thing that holds the Kripke world into an atomic proposition h(...) that you keep in the conclusion. Having used the conclusion for that, where does the object-language conclusion go? Well, you stash it in the context, like in the resource semantics paper. How do you keep it from getting pathologically duplicated? You mark it with a frame variable φ, and shove that into a different argument of the h(...), and insist they line up everwhere they need to. Finally, there's a third argument of the h(...) that is some trick apparently required to model Pfenning-Davies diamond correctly. I don't know how to give an intuition for it. It just seems to be the thing that works.
The idea behind the new translation is you can squeeze the thing that holds the Kripke world into an atomic proposition h(...) that you keep in the conclusion. Having used the conclusion for that, where does the object-language conclusion go? Well, you stash it in the context, like in the resource semantics paper. How do you keep it from getting pathologically duplicated? You mark it with a frame variable φ, and shove that into a different argument of the h(...), and insist they line up everwhere they need to. Finally, there's a third argument of the h(...) that is some trick apparently required to model Pfenning-Davies diamond correctly. I don't know how to give an intuition for it. It just seems to be the thing that works.
-
(no subject)
A paper on describing circuits in an agda DSL: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~swier004/publications/2015-types-draft.pdf
-
(no subject)
Going more carefully now through this little tutorial on fpga programming with the iCEstick. It's in spanish, which makes it slightly more…
-
(no subject)
Some further progress cleaning up the https://xkcd.com/1360/ -esque augean stables that is my hard drive. Tomato chicken I made a couple days ago…
- Post a new comment
- 0 comments
- Post a new comment
- 0 comments