Re: A few examples
On Tue, May 31, 2011 11:55, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I move to amend this motion as follows.
>
> (1) That all mention of the bits D(f,X)+, D(f,X)-, & C(f,X)
> be removed from consideration on the grounds that they belong
> at a lower level.
>
> (2) That the names of the decorations D0 through D4 be
> replaced with John's 3 letter names on the grounds that the
> notion that D0 < D1 < D2 < D3 < D4 is also an implementation
> detail that belongs at a lower level.
>
> (3) That an explicit statement of just the partial ordering
> required for FTDIA be included so that this proof can be done
> without reference to these lower level details.
There will be soon an updated version of John Pryce's level 1 treatment of
decorations. It addresses the very same issues as the motion by Nate
Hayes, but with much more careful and detailed explanations and
motivation. (I am just proofreading his current version, an improvement
over the previously circulated draft.)