Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1142/9789812562494_0056
P. Panangaden
{"title":"Does Combining Nondeterminism and Probability Make Sense?","authors":"P. Panangaden","doi":"10.1142/9789812562494_0056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812562494_0056","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":388781,"journal":{"name":"Bull. EATCS","volume":"27 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114135494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1142/9789812794499_0025
Carl A. Gunter
The way to specify a programming language has been a topic of heated debate for some decades and at present there is no consensus on how this is best done. Real languages are almost always specified informally; nevertheless, precision is often enough lacking that more formal approaches could benefit both programmers and language implementors. My purpose is to look at a few of these formal approaches in hope of establishing some distinctions or at least stirring some discussion. Comments University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Sciences Technical Report No. MSCIS-91-61. This technical report is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/337 Forms of Semantic Specification MS-CIS-91-61 Logic & Computation 37
{"title":"Forms of Semantic Specification","authors":"Carl A. Gunter","doi":"10.1142/9789812794499_0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812794499_0025","url":null,"abstract":"The way to specify a programming language has been a topic of heated debate for some decades and at present there is no consensus on how this is best done. Real languages are almost always specified informally; nevertheless, precision is often enough lacking that more formal approaches could benefit both programmers and language implementors. My purpose is to look at a few of these formal approaches in hope of establishing some distinctions or at least stirring some discussion. Comments University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Sciences Technical Report No. MSCIS-91-61. This technical report is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/337 Forms of Semantic Specification MS-CIS-91-61 Logic & Computation 37","PeriodicalId":388781,"journal":{"name":"Bull. EATCS","volume":"552 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116644424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1142/9789812794499_0027
A. Scedrov
An overview of linear logic is given, including an extensive bibliography and a simple example of the close relationship between linear logic and computation. 1 Overview Linear logic, introduced by Girard 45], is a reenement of classical logic. Linear logic is sometimes described as resource sensitive because it provides an intrinsic and natural accounting of resources. This is indicated by the fact that in linear logic, two assumptions of a formula A are distinguished from a single assumption of A. Informally, on the level of basic intuition, one might say that classical logic is about truth, that intuitionistic logic is about construction of proofs, and that linear logic is about process states, events, or resources, which must be carefully accounted for. A convenient way to present the syntax of linear logic is by modifying the traditional Gentzen-style sequent calculus axiomatization of classical logic,
{"title":"A brief guide to linear logic","authors":"A. Scedrov","doi":"10.1142/9789812794499_0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812794499_0027","url":null,"abstract":"An overview of linear logic is given, including an extensive bibliography and a simple example of the close relationship between linear logic and computation. 1 Overview Linear logic, introduced by Girard 45], is a reenement of classical logic. Linear logic is sometimes described as resource sensitive because it provides an intrinsic and natural accounting of resources. This is indicated by the fact that in linear logic, two assumptions of a formula A are distinguished from a single assumption of A. Informally, on the level of basic intuition, one might say that classical logic is about truth, that intuitionistic logic is about construction of proofs, and that linear logic is about process states, events, or resources, which must be carefully accounted for. A convenient way to present the syntax of linear logic is by modifying the traditional Gentzen-style sequent calculus axiomatization of classical logic,","PeriodicalId":388781,"journal":{"name":"Bull. EATCS","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125207772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3_14
D. Lokshtanov, D. Marx, Saket Saurabh
{"title":"Lower bounds based on the Exponential Time Hypothesis","authors":"D. Lokshtanov, D. Marx, Saket Saurabh","doi":"10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3_14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3_14","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":388781,"journal":{"name":"Bull. EATCS","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126046947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Injectivity of the Quotient hg of Two Morphisms and Ambiguity of Linear Grammars","authors":"P. Turakainen","doi":"10.25596/jalc-2001-091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25596/jalc-2001-091","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":388781,"journal":{"name":"Bull. EATCS","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123775073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1142/9789812794499_0034
R. V. Book, O. Watanabe
At several recent conferences, the question “What is Structural Complexity Theory?” has been the source of some lively discussions. At this time there does not exist one commonly accepted answer but the intersection of almost all answers is nonempty. The purpose of this paper is to describe one answer to this question. We will not describe in detail recent technical results, although some will be mentioned as examples, but rather will provide comments about themes and paradigms which may be useful in organizing much of the material. We assume that the reader is familiar with (or has access to) the book Structural Complexity I, by Balcazar, Diaz, and Gabarro [BDG88]. What is desired in the formulation of a theory of computational complexity is a method for dealing with the quantitative aspects of computing. Such a method would depend upon a general theory that would provide a means for defining and studying the “inherent difficulty” of computing functions (or, more generally, solving problems). Such a theory would explain the relationships among assorted computational models and among the various complexity measures that can be defined in the context of the models and their different modes of operation, and explain why some functions are inherently difficult to compute. While any such theory must necessarily be mathematical in nature, it cannot be mathematics as such; rather, it must reflect aspects of real computing and contribute to the formal development of computer science. From the study of specific problems, it has become a widely accepted notion that a problem is not “feasible” unless it can be solved using at most polynomial space and a problem is not “tractable” unless it can be solved using at most polynomial time. Much of the effort in complexity theory has been placed on determining just what functions are
{"title":"A view of structural complexity theory","authors":"R. V. Book, O. Watanabe","doi":"10.1142/9789812794499_0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812794499_0034","url":null,"abstract":"At several recent conferences, the question “What is Structural Complexity Theory?” has been the source of some lively discussions. At this time there does not exist one commonly accepted answer but the intersection of almost all answers is nonempty. The purpose of this paper is to describe one answer to this question. We will not describe in detail recent technical results, although some will be mentioned as examples, but rather will provide comments about themes and paradigms which may be useful in organizing much of the material. We assume that the reader is familiar with (or has access to) the book Structural Complexity I, by Balcazar, Diaz, and Gabarro [BDG88]. What is desired in the formulation of a theory of computational complexity is a method for dealing with the quantitative aspects of computing. Such a method would depend upon a general theory that would provide a means for defining and studying the “inherent difficulty” of computing functions (or, more generally, solving problems). Such a theory would explain the relationships among assorted computational models and among the various complexity measures that can be defined in the context of the models and their different modes of operation, and explain why some functions are inherently difficult to compute. While any such theory must necessarily be mathematical in nature, it cannot be mathematics as such; rather, it must reflect aspects of real computing and contribute to the formal development of computer science. From the study of specific problems, it has become a widely accepted notion that a problem is not “feasible” unless it can be solved using at most polynomial space and a problem is not “tractable” unless it can be solved using at most polynomial time. Much of the effort in complexity theory has been placed on determining just what functions are","PeriodicalId":388781,"journal":{"name":"Bull. EATCS","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134524774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：