Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

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

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

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

adl opened this issue May 26, 2015 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@adl
Copy link
Owner

@adl 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
Copy link
Collaborator

@xblahoud 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
Copy link
Collaborator

@strejcek 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
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.