Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??

• To: kim@cs.williams.edu
• Subject: Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??
• From: Thomas Streicher <streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>
• Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:57:05 +0200 (CEST)
• CC: types@cis.upenn.edu
• In-Reply-To: <3DAF819E.5080605@cs.williams.edu> from Kim Bruce at "Oct 17, 2002 11:35:58 pm"

Dear Kim,

thank you for the clear statement about the state of the art w.r.t.
F_{omega,sub,rec}. It conforms that my understanding wasn't absolutely
mistaken.
I never doubted that the interesting equations can be solved this way.
So I see two possibilities in case one cannot give denotational meaning to 
the full calculus F_{omega,sub,rec}. Either one just takes it as a 
metalanguage having suffiicently good operational properties (your choice)
or, if one wants to work denotationally based, to consider types a subsets of
or pers on some untyped universe.

Thomas Streicher

• Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??
• From: Kim Bruce <kim@cs.williams.edu>

• Prev: Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??
• Next: PSSL 78 - First announcement
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread