Talk:Power domains

Untitled

Hello, I have updated this page. I hope I have kept the original contributions but the page now gives a guide to modern power domain theory. (It still needs quite some work. Perhaps explicit descriptions of the Plotkin powerdomain should be included, and the Egli Milner order, etc.)

A detailed comparison of Clinger's thesis with the work of Back is not appropriate here. There is so much that could be said about so many things and the article would explode if we did justice to all the pros and cons of everything. I propose to abbreviate this to a sentence or two.

Also, terminology is used in the theorem about finite frontiers that is not explained anywhere. And I don't know what is meant by "traditional power domain". I propose to replace all this with a brief, intelligible summary so that the contributions of Hewitt, Clinger etc are made clear. Sam Staton 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the category "actor model" from this page because I asked myself the questions If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? from the guidelines and found the answers to be "no" and "no". Sam Staton 17:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made some important improvements. I have added a bit on concurrency.--71.204.128.92 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carl, that is clearer now. It is still too verbose, though; I don't think the long quotations are necessary and the rough idea can be given more briefly. I am happy to have a go at this over the next few days.

I see that it's now slightly briefer, thank you, though you've now added more stuff and self citation. There is still a lot of work to be done. I also point you to Wikipedia:Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources; there is far too much quotation here. The issues that you have written about at length might be important to you but the article is now unbalanced in terms of volume. I will have a go at trimming it down in the next few days. Sam Staton 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the section headings in the hope that the article is easier to navigate.

I have a question. You added the following sentences to the second introductory paragraph.

For example, in current systems (e.g., the Actor model) it is natural to impose the condition that every message sent must eventually be delivered. However, the limit of a chain of approximations in which a message was not delivered, would be a completed computation in which the message was never delivered!

I didn't understand how these sentences fit with the previous sentence in the paragraph. When I wrote "one is led to increasingly complicated notions of power domain", I was hinting about the Plotkin, Hoare, Smyth etc.. I have tried to clarify this in the revised version, and I hope I have got the right end of the stick, without removing your contribution.

One last thing. Someone had put "citation needed" tags on the use of Hoare and Smyth. This is usage is standard, see any reference including those given. Did you want a discussion of why they are called Hoare/Smyth? I'm not sure what there is to say. Sam Staton 11:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I see you trimmed it down; that's great, thank you. Sam Staton 09:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plural title?

One last thing. I propose to change the title to the singular "power domain". Right? All the best, Sam Staton 19:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power domains may be preferable because there are many different kinds.--206.223.225.227 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I've made appropriate redirects. Sam Staton 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

"the chapter by Abramsky and Jung [1994]" this is not a proper citation. Chapter of what? Same for "Plotkin [1983, Chapter 8] and Smyth [1978]" 2001:67C:2564:518:F1B2:64B2:C2B6:8C19 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]