Re: Two more FAQ entries

At 3:58 PM +0200 1.9.04, Lutz Strassburger wrote:
>  > OK, as I suspected, you have a personal, still not very frequent
>>  notion of proof net; my problem was to address the frequent notion
>>  known to the people who frequently ask questions.
>
>OK, I agree with you on the that point. But I still think that you should
>reformulate your FAQ entry a little, maybe saying that as most people see
>proof nets, the symmetry is only partial, but that there is work in progress
>to carry the full symmetry of CoS to PN.

What about:

*** Question   Aren't proof nets top-down symmetric objects, not 
differently than proofs in the calculus of structures?

*** Answer   No, proof nets are top-down asymmetric: they consist of 
trees with some links on top (in the simplest case of multiplicative 
linear logic). There is yet no notion which flips nets upside-down 
and at the same time produces a dual net. On the other hand, we are 
working towards bringing the calculus of structures top-down symmetry 
to proof nets, so making it possible to deal with nets characterising 
derivations, which are more general objects than proofs.

-Alessio