Timeline for What do we call this quantifier ("binder")?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2016 at 9:02 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | Yeah, you can do it in domain theory but these fixed-point equations are quite simple (they are covariant) and can be solved in ordinary set theory. | |
| Jun 25, 2016 at 8:54 | comment | added | goblin GONE | Just that we should be able to define $\mu x.(x+1)$ as the join of a chain of expression in an appropriate poset; I thought maybe domain theory was kind of about this. (I don't have a CS background, as you can probably tell.) | |
| Jun 24, 2016 at 22:06 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | Well, not really, unless you have something particular in mind. | |
| Jun 24, 2016 at 16:07 | comment | added | goblin GONE | Do you know if this have anything to do with domain theory? | |
| Jun 24, 2016 at 16:06 | vote | accept | goblin GONE | ||
| Jun 23, 2016 at 10:28 | history | edited | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 22, 2016 at 23:32 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | Right, I think the Wikipedia page I linked to mentions these things. | |
| Jun 22, 2016 at 21:52 | comment | added | Steven Stadnicki | A small addendum: these structures have very close connections with the Anti-Foundation Axiom (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom) which essentially posits that any such system has a solution. | |
| Jun 22, 2016 at 20:31 | history | edited | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 645 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2016 at 20:21 | history | answered | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |