Closed vcvpaiva closed 4 years ago
one way to solve this might be to say
The collections ILLTP-\*
and KLE-\*
are obtained via the
Girard translations in [1]
(sometimes called call-by-name and call-by-value translations) and
Liang and Miller's 0/1 [2],
thanks for dealing with this!
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:08 AM Valeria de Paiva valeria.depaiva@gmail.com wrote:
hi Giselle,
Kleene's book has both classical and intuitionsitic theorems, actually one has to read the section carefully to find only the intuitonistic ones, hence my "clarification". but sure I don't mind not adding "classical", but I wish we could give it (and some other things mentioned) a better bibliography description.
about two, I do object to calling them call-by-name and call-by-value, as I think these names are misleading. The translations exist in pure logic, where no evaluation mechanism needs to be mentioned. Using either translation you can have both a call-by-name and a call-by-value evaluation mechanism. Yes, I agree that this is a widespread convention and many people use it for the two Girard's translations as a shortcut, but I still think this is a bad use of these names and personally I do not want to perpetuate it.
Thanks! Valeria
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:37 AM Giselle Reis notifications@github.com wrote:
@gisellemnr commented on this pull request.
Hi Valeria,
Thanks for the edits! I left a few comments on the pull request before merging.
Best, Giselle
In README.md https://github.com/meta-logic/lltp/pull/6#discussion_r422070819:
-Benchmark of problems for linear logic provers +a benchmark of problems for linear logic provers
Maybe use uppercase A?
In README.md https://github.com/meta-logic/lltp/pull/6#discussion_r422071108:
@@ -25,11 +25,11 @@ specified as
fof(name, axiom, F)
andfof(name, conjecture, F)
respectiveIntuitionistic problems
The collection of intuitionistic problems is described in [4] and it can be found in the directory
ILL
. The problems were obtained from three main sources:-1. Kleene's problems for intuitionistic logic from "Introduction to Metamathematics" +1. Kleene's theorems for classic and intuitionistic logic from "Introduction to Metamathematics" (New York: van Nostrand, 1952)
This is a list of where the intuitionistic problems come from, so shouldn't we only mention Kleene's intuitionistic problems?
In README.md https://github.com/meta-logic/lltp/pull/6#discussion_r422071635:
- Intuitionistic Logic Theorem Provers library ILTP
- Petri-nets from the Model Checking Contest
-The collections
ILLTP-\*
andKLE-\*
are obtained via the translations call-by-name, call-by-value [1] and Liang and Miller's 0/1 [2], +The collectionsILLTP-\*
andKLE-\*
are obtained via the Girard translations in [1] and Liang and Miller's 0/1 [2],I would keep call-by-name and call-by-value (even if only in parentheses) since there are people who may identify more immediately the transformations by these names.
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/meta-logic/lltp/pull/6#pullrequestreview-408150057, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIZ3H5MDOSM5GMCFBQ2PEDRQPOGVANCNFSM4M4ACAGQ .
-- Valeria de Paiva http://vcvpaiva.github.io/ http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~vdp/
-- Valeria de Paiva http://vcvpaiva.github.io/ http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~vdp/
I see your point. I'll add the clarification in parenthesis. Thanks!
thanks!!
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 2:25 AM Giselle Reis notifications@github.com wrote:
I see your point. I'll add the clarification in parenthesis. Thanks!
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/meta-logic/lltp/pull/6#issuecomment-626136153, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIZ3H26WF3XDQKOOFCCKR3RQUOSFANCNFSM4M4ACAGQ .
-- Valeria de Paiva http://vcvpaiva.github.io/ http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~vdp/
hi Giselle,
Kleene's book has both classical and intuitionsitic theorems, actually one has to read the section carefully to find only the intuitonistic ones, hence my "clarification". but sure I don't mind not adding "classical", but I wish we could give it (and some other things mentioned) a better bibliography description.
about two, I do object to calling them call-by-name and call-by-value, as I think these names are misleading. The translations exist in pure logic, where no evaluation mechanism needs to be mentioned. Using either translation you can have both a call-by-name and a call-by-value evaluation mechanism. Yes, I agree that this is a widespread convention and many people use it for the two Girard's translations as a shortcut, but I still think this is a bad use of these names and personally I do not want to perpetuate it.
Thanks! Valeria
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:37 AM Giselle Reis notifications@github.com wrote:
-- Valeria de Paiva http://vcvpaiva.github.io/ http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~vdp/