Re: in praise of tabling
- From: "Geoffrey Summerhayes" <sumrnot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:12:51 -0400
"Bart Demoen" <bmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1114110114.749048@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Then there is the "do-it-yourself-memoing" by Geoff ... unfortunately
> he refrains from making a statement, as if the program and the timing
> results should speak for themselves. Maybe we are supposed to
> interpret them and comment on them - well, here I go ... a screw
> driver is only occasionally useful when removing a nail. When it
> works, you feel like you win because you saved on buying tweezers.
> But it is a false sense of victory/security: you have a proof that the
> transformed program behaves like the original or is it just a
> programming trick that was verified empirically ? Do you know when it
> can be applied more generally ? Does it perhaps depend on undecidable
> properties of the original program ?
> I rest my case :-)
>
So, adding auto_table makes you feel secure?
--
Geoff
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: in praise of tabling
- From: Bart Demoen
- Re: in praise of tabling
- References:
- in praise of tabling
- From: Nick Wedd
- Re: in praise of tabling
- From: Bart Demoen
- in praise of tabling
- Prev by Date: Re: My first lptp proof
- Next by Date: Re: in praise of tabling
- Previous by thread: Re: in praise of tabling
- Next by thread: Re: in praise of tabling
- Index(es):