[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nondeterminism and equivalence
As to the single-behavior vs. infinite behaviors, of course you are right. That was a silly mistake on my part. You are also correct about them not being a set in axiomatic set theory.
But as to the rest, I understand the semantic equivalence, but my point is that the equivalence is extensional (with respect to behaviors), and there may be cases where a more intensional equivalence would be desired (with respect to the algorithm's internal nondeterminism). This more intensional equivalence need not necessarily be entirely syntactic.