[Agda] A different implementation of --without-K
psztxa at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk
Fri Nov 29 20:01:40 CET 2013
Shouldn't the semantics simply be that you can only prove things you can
prove using only J but not K?
On 29/11/2013 17:36, "Andreas Abel" <andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de> wrote:
>On 29.11.2013 18:11, Harley D. Eades III wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2013, at 5:00 AM, Nils Anders Danielsson <nad at cse.gu.se>
>>> On 2013-11-28 23:34, Andreas Abel wrote:
>>>> Yes, some of the fail test cases seem only to be there to document
>>>> what *is* rejected. I do not know what purpose this serves, since I
>>>> would expect only stuff there that *must be* rejected.
>>> The point is that the semantics of --without-K should not be changed by
>>> accident. These examples "must" be rejected until we make a conscious
>>> decision to change the semantics.
>> Where is the semantics of --without-K formally written down?
>There is not much written. The documentation of the --without-K
>variants is in the respective release notes.
>Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
>Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
>Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY
>andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de
>Agda mailing list
>Agda at lists.chalmers.se
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
More information about the Agda