Re: the point of (any) semantics, was Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??

To: matthias@ccs.neu.edu
Subject: Re: the point of (any) semantics, was Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??
From: nipkow@in.tum.de
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:44:42 +0100 (MET)
Cc: types@cis.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: <200211161641.gAGGfQdR006037@saul.cis.upenn.edu> (message from Matthias Felleisen on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:19:56 -0500 (EST))
References: <200211151436.PAA26724@fb04209.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> <200211161641.gAGGfQdR006037@saul.cis.upenn.edu>

Matthias Felleisen wrote:

> Andrew and I studied the proof and found that we had skipped one of the 
> cases with "like the others." It wasn't like the others .. and it didn't
> work.

It happens to the best of us. I think the Subject should be
   "The point of machine checked proofs"

Tobias

References:

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

From: Thomas Streicher <streicher@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>

Prev: Re: the point of (any) semantics, was Re: semantics for F_{sub,rec} ??
Next: "foundations built on sand"
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread