Re: Two more FAQ entries

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 16:29, Alessio Guglielmi wrote:
> 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

OK.

-Lutz