Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Matching logic

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Matching logic


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Thorsten Altenkirch <Thorsten.Altenkirch AT nottingham.ac.uk>
  • To: "coq-club AT inria.fr" <coq-club AT inria.fr>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Matching logic
  • Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:57:47 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US, en-GB
  • Authentication-results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=Thorsten.Altenkirch AT nottingham.ac.uk; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=Thorsten.Altenkirch AT nottingham.ac.uk; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT uidappmx05.nottingham.ac.uk
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23:cIOjshc225lnC+skJUSl7WaDlGMj4u6mDksu8pMizoh2WeGdxc6yZR7h7PlgxGXEQZ/co6odzbGG4ua9BCdfsd6oizMrTt9lb1c9k8IYnggtUoauKHbQC7rUVRE8B9lIT1R//nu2YgB/Ecf6YEDO8DXptWZBUiv2OQc9HOnpAIma153xjLDjvcCOKFoYzBOGIppMbzyO5T3LsccXhYYwYo0Q8TDu5kVyRuJN2GlzLkiSlRuvru25/Zpk7jgC86l5r50IAu3GePFyRrtBST8iLmod5cvxtBCFQxHFri8XVXxTmR5VCSDE6gv7V9H/qH2pmPB63XymPcrsVqw5X3yL67tmThzpkiwHf2oF8GbNkdB9iuRypA6soR9+2YXUSIeSKOZ/eKzddNZcTGEHQ8UHBH8JOZ+1c4ZaV7lJBu1ftYSo/1Y=

This doesn’t make sense to me whatsoever.

Type theory is based on constructive philosophy and you can’t just “add your semantics”. I have no idea in what sense Type Theory is discrete but this it can be used to reason about continuous and disicrete phenomena. Induction is important but so is coinduction and many other ideas. No it is not based on axioms, things are provable by construction.

Now what the hell is “matching logic”? Not that I really want to know but if somebody could write a paragraph that would be nice. 

Cheers,
Thorsten

From: <coq-club-request AT inria.fr> on behalf of Kenneth Adam Miller <kennethadammiller AT gmail.com>
Reply-To: "coq-club AT inria.fr" <coq-club AT inria.fr>
Date: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 14:55
To: coq-club Club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Matching logic

Is Induction it's own category of semantics? I didn't think so, I thought it was a proof method. But it appears to be the star in Coq. I suppose Coq is actually discrete in that sense; it's a set of type theoretic foundations, and if particular semantics are wanted to be modeled or reasoned about, they could be added within the Coq system. Right? I guess that hadn't been answered, although I'm not sure how to ask for what I'm grasping for; how do the different semantics, axiomatic/operational/denotational/<one other here> interoperate, or are they discrete because it's a fundamental remaining difficulty with the mathematics that has yet to be reconciled?



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.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of Page