On 12/10/2010 2:11 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Denotational semantics (DS) has had a very poor effect on anything
> related to program correctness or even optimization in computer
> science, and only a minor effect on even FOL expressions of programs.
> It's a dead end that is based on the assumption that translating
> meaningful expressions to simplistic FOL doesn't require an
> interpreter who understands the notation. I know that mathematical
> logicians love it, but it hasn't yielded results worth the costs that
> have been spent on it.
>
> DS is useless for practical sized problems because it ignores scope;
> it will be an academic curiosity for a long, long time. Fun and games
> for logicians, but not useful. (01)
I'd thought it was plain enough, but the point of my posts has been only
to bring a bit of clarity about strictly theoretical (and admittedly
somewhat tangential) issues of technical logic that have come up in
this thread. Obviously, you have missed this point, not to mention the
theoretical points, but perhaps my posts have been of some help or
interest to others and hopefully can serve to offset the mish-mash of
personal anecdotes, theoretical confusion and misinformation, and
outright gibberish that have constituted your contributions -- vide
above. (02)
No more from me on this. (03)
-chris (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|