RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1757

Hi Johan,

I do not feel that strongly on that, what do other people think?

BTW, in the definition of disable iff, the lrm uses the least 
index that satisfies b.

Doron

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Martensson [mailto:johan.martensson@jasper-da.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:48 AM
To: Bustan, Doron
Cc: John Havlicek; Kulshrestha, Manisha; Bassam Tabbara; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1757

Hi Doron,

Omitting the "least index" requirement certainly seems to result in a
more succinct definition though. From my point of view the purpose of
formal definitions is not primarily to explain things in an intuitive
way to users but to provide a tool for investigation of the logical
connections among properties and so on (something that implementors need
to do for example), and for this purpose definitions should be as
succinct as possible, I think.

Best Reagards,

Johan


On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Bustan, Doron wrote:
> Hi Johan
> 
> >>It seems to me that 
> >>
> >>w^{0..i-1}T^\omega|=P for i the least index,0 < i < |w|, such that
> w^i|=b,
> >>
> >>and 
> >>
> >>w^{0..i-1}T^\omega|=P for some i,0 < i < |w|, such that w^i|=b
> >>
> >>are eqiuvalent.
> >>
> >>The reason for this is that if i<=j and
> >>
> >>w^{0..j}T^\omega|=P
> >>
> >>then
> >>
> >>w^{0..i}T^\omega|=P
> >>
> >>This means that we can simplify the semantic definition to
> >>
> >>  w|= accept_on (b) P iff 
> >>  
> >>   w|=P 
> >>  or 
> >>   w^{0..i-1}T^\omega|=P for some i,0 < i < |w|, such that w^i|=b
> >>
> >>or equivalently
> >>
> >>   w|=P 
> >>  or 
> >>   there exists i such that 0 < i < |w| and w^i|=b and
> w^{0..i->>1}T^\omega|=P
> 
> 
> I agree about the equivalence but I am not sure whether it is simpler.
I
> think it is more intuitive to think of the first b.
> 
> Doron
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.