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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

all plc example evaluation tests passing #847

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Apr 25, 2019
Merged

all plc example evaluation tests passing #847

merged 13 commits into from
Apr 25, 2019

Conversation

jmchapman
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@jmchapman jmchapman self-assigned this Apr 4, 2019
@jmchapman
working towards a simulation result for progress
525e77f 
* there is a mismatch between intrinsic reduction where all errors
  percolate up whereas in extrinsic reduction where there is a
  predicate for when an error occurs in a subterm
@jmchapman
changed the way the in-progress handles errors
0bf9c24 
* instead of bubbling an error deep in term outwards to the top via
  several redctions, it stops immediately
@jmchapman jmchapman changed the title simulation correctness of extrinsic execution Apr 10, 2019
@jmchapman jmchapman changed the title correctness of extrinsic execution correctness of extrinsic execution stage 1 Apr 10, 2019
@jmchapman jmchapman changed the title correctness of extrinsic execution stage 1 all plc example tests passing Apr 25, 2019
@jmchapman jmchapman changed the title all plc example tests passing all plc example evaluation tests passing Apr 25, 2019
@jmchapman
Copy link
Contributor Author

This started off as a step towards proving a correctness property about intrinsic/extrinsic evaluation. But, I discovered that the extrinsic implementation didn't pass all the plc example tests and also sizes have now been removed. So, I am going to push a version that passes the tests with trivialised sizes (there were some bugs in edge cases which aren't worth fixing) before removing sizes and then resuming the correctness proof.

@jmchapman jmchapman marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2019 10:23
@jmchapman jmchapman merged commit dfcaeb4 into IntersectMBO:master Apr 25, 2019
@rmourey26 rmourey26 mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2022
Open
@rmourey26 rmourey26 mentioned this pull request Dec 26, 2022
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@jmchapman jmchapman

Labels
Metatheory Test
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
1 participant
@jmchapman