I found that the definition is overly restrictive in the face of disjunction; it required all variables to be safe in every disjunct, even if the variable does not occur in the head. This is, however, a situation we do want to allow. I updated the definition yet again. This disjunction in core is giving me a headache. Would the difficulties of Jos with the definition of safeness be sufficient grounds for getting rid of disjunction in core? ;-) Jos de Bruijn wrote: > I updated the safeness condition to fix the technical problem I noticed > during the telephone conference and to improve the presentation. I hope > it is now easier to follow. > Please let me know if there are still problems in the presentation. > > The problem with the previous version of the definition was that it > allowed to assign "bound" to all variables, even those appearing only in > external terms. > I now make a distinction between safe and strongly safe variables, where > the strongly safe variables are those that are made safe by non-external > atoms. It is required that all variables that are not strongly safe are > assigned "unbound". > > Please *read carefully* and criticize. > And I remind you that it is not necessary to wait until the next > telephone conference before starting to read the definition. > > > Best, Jos > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar. - Donald FosterReceived on Friday, 6 February 2009 11:20:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:53 UTC