Revisiting Plotkin's original paper, I really like this framing -- a transition system designer carefully picks the granularity of observable events, trading off for proof complexity. Perhaps like why substitution isn't usually part of lambda calculus operational semantics.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hm, I feel like this might be one of those explanations that works better if you already have the intuition. But this is also how I think about small-step SOS, although the triangles should be on top, and inverted...
-
In my experience w/ CS242, students definitely confuse "steps" of a single computation proof vs. actual computation steps of a program. I think this frame might help. I'll try and report back! Also, Plotkin has strong words for you. Follow the ~~~direction of discovery~~~pic.twitter.com/G7vNrn8qNw
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sssh! You're giving away trade secrets.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
cognitive psychology. PhD