| ▲ | qsort 5 hours ago | |
Yes. To be transparent: I don't understand this stuff all that well and it's entirely possible I'm missing something, but everything here is weird AF. - Who is the author? Why he has no affiliation? - What is the main result of the paper? How does it improve on the state of the art? Even for stuff that's way beyond my pay grade, I can usually tell from the abstract. I'm completely baffled here. - Why do they introduce graphical notation without corresponding formal definitions? - Why is it written in this weird style where theorems are left implicit? Usually, there's at least a sketch of proof. - Why does it not address that the thing they're claiming to do isn't elementary recursive as per https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.2001.2869? Again, it's entirely possible that it's a skill issue on my part and I'd love to be corrected, but I'm completely baffled and I still have absolutely no idea of what I'm looking at. Am I the stupid one and it's obvious to everyone else? | ||
| ▲ | etiamz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Note that, in the interaction net literature, it is pretty common to introduce graphical notation without corresponding textual counterparts. See the works of Lafont, Lamping, Asperti, Guerrini, and many others [1]. (However, the textual calculus can be absolutely crucial for formal proof.) The absence of proofs and benchmarks undermines the paper for me as well. I find it absolutely critical to demonstrate how the approach works in comparison with already established software, such as BOHM [2]. Parallel beta reduction not being elementarily recursive is not a thing to address, nor a thing one can address. Lamping's abstract algorithm already performs the minimal amount of work to reduce a term -- one cannot improve it further. From my understanding, the paper aims to optimize the bookkeeping overhead present in earlier implementations of optimal reduction. However, as I said, the absence of formal/empirical evidence of correctness and extensive benchmarks makes the contributions of the paper debatable. | ||