[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[tlaplus] About "implies" between WF and SF
- From: Huailin <huailin@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:IYDXi64mx3BIMFu/+APXwFfXdLJyesId70hD6qkRc20uTiX8rarCoB11726RtN98YgBGpThvUJPwNU812/ZOkPws1PSZLXjbUFLBFvAR0WKa+UyWJ8SczJ8n6U/UGJIOduEYc2IK9PoSuzPIbOrIqePvmMvY59s2qU0dMT2CRJsO0+4TMHfiLqQZfnghOXL5fKDshfavZADPRZ3UVKiG7slvZZmxmzQGrvPbie5sPW9b1OBGt1PYjYLSIlyjxx8bFxlPzb0h/WWAswu8yL6kr+jT8G6t61Pu
I am reading again your article this evening at https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/fairness/
I feel that the “Weak” fairness implies the existence of “strong” fairness. may introduce bit confusion to beginners.
I mean, the "imply" word could make people get confused. I don't think you want to say:
WF implies SF, which means: WF(A) --> SF(A). However, from TLA+, It should be otherwise. I mean, SF(A)-->WF(A).
I guess you just wanted to tell readers that the "existence of SF". So, maybe we don't want to use "implies" word here, which is more a reserved word for prepositional logic.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tlaplus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tlaplus+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/5ad2759e-d30f-4b95-9ea2-fbd205a83574n%40googlegroups.com.