the definition of F as a set of sets sounds incorrect #48

Closed
adl opened this Issue May 26, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@adl
Owner

adl commented May 26, 2015

In the formal semantics we have something like this

$F={S_0,S_1,…,S_{m−1}}$ is a finite set of acceptance sets.

where each S_i is a subset of transitions.

I think declaring F as a set is a mistake, because it implicitly implies that all S_i will be different, which is not the case in the format.

I suggest to rewrite this as

$F=(S_0,S_1,…,S_{m−1})$ is a tuple of $m$ acceptance sets.

Do you agree?

@adl adl added the question label May 26, 2015

@xblahoud

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xblahoud

xblahoud May 27, 2015

Collaborator

Tuple sounds fine to me. It naturally comes with the order and indexing the sets. I can't see any advantage of having a set there.

Collaborator

xblahoud commented May 27, 2015

Tuple sounds fine to me. It naturally comes with the order and indexing the sets. I can't see any advantage of having a set there.

@strejcek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@strejcek

strejcek May 29, 2015

Collaborator

Or we can say that $F=S_0,S_1,…,S_{m−1}$ is a finite sequence of $m$ acceptance sets.
I like it slightly more than tuples of an arbitrary arity/length.

Collaborator

strejcek commented May 29, 2015

Or we can say that $F=S_0,S_1,…,S_{m−1}$ is a finite sequence of $m$ acceptance sets.
I like it slightly more than tuples of an arbitrary arity/length.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment