Subject: RE: two remaining questions
From: Armoni, Roy (roy.armoni@intel.com)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2001 - 01:59:03 PST
Sorry, you are right Cindy.
I somehow had that impression. I wrote the statement below without actually
looking at
the definition.
So Erich, please ignore this point.
Regards,
Roy
-----Original Message-----
From: Cindy Eisner [mailto:EISNER@il.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:49 AM
To: Armoni, Roy
Cc: vfv@eda.org
Subject: RE: two remaining questions
roy,
>One more point to add is that for some reason, Sugar did not allow
negation
>over
>"{sere}(formula)". Sugar FL allows that. This is also not a restriction,
>and allowing
>that is actually a key point in the proof of omega-regularity.
i am not sure where you got this impression. original sugar and the sugar
foundation language are both closed under negation. see definition 4 of
both documents: "the syntax and semantics of sugar" and "sugar repackaged
- the foundation language".
cindy.
Cindy Eisner
Formal Methods Group Tel: +972-4-8296-266
IBM Haifa Research Laboratory Fax: +972-4-855-0070
Haifa 31905, Israel e-mail:
eisner@il.ibm.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Dec 13 2001 - 02:06:57 PST