PER's and operational semantics

• To: types
• Subject: PER's and operational semantics
• From: gunter@saul.cis.upenn.edu
• Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 22:11:33 EDT
• Sender: meyer@theory.lcs.mit.edu

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:57:07 EDT
To: jcm@cs.stanford.edu
Cc: types@theory.lcs.mit.edu

"A more interesting question, to my mind, is what happens with models that
do contain a fixed-point operator, and the relationship between the
domain structure and recursion theory."     --- John Mitchell

This is really what I had in mind.  The interpretation would need to
use CPER's (as in Amadio's LICS 88 paper), the PER's in the
Abadi/Plotkin paper, or something else which is able to interpret
recursion.  Does an adequacy or full abstraction result hold for the
semantics of a reasonable calculus in any of these models?

                --- carl gunter

• Prev: Re: PER's and operational semantics
• Next: Extensions to Theory of Constructions (734 lines)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread