hyunsukimsokcho
commented
4 years ago Thanks to the elaboration, I earn more understandings. It becomes very clear once we define super- argument in terms of property, (usually defined by a test) then come up with a reduction mechanism that guarantees derived monotonicity. (i.e. naturally derived by super- argument)
I was confused since I set apart the semantics of super- and monotonicity. Thanks again for the supplements!
Still, I may be still missing so feel free to correct me.
Based on Hyunsu's last question, I elaborated that part on the slides a bit. See page 18.
If failure is not monotone (i.e., a super input of a failure input makes success), a 1-minimal solution may not contain the root cause of the failure. That makes DD less useful in practice.
"super-input of a failure input" does not mean an arbitrary input larger than the failure input. That also must be a subset of the "original failure input". I think this part was misleading and Jaehwang pointed out that correctly.
More questions and discussions are welcome!