Re: Evolving Algebra semantics for LL (request)

> I think this would just give you a form of possible-worlds (Kripke)
> model.
I think it's not quite the same, because in Kripke semantics one has
relatively fixed binary or ternary reachability relations, and the game
becomes actually interesting when you impose certain conditions on them
(reflexivity, transitivity, etc).

> Is there some intuition that makes evolving algebras
> seem natural?
My intuition was very simple, not to call it naive: evloving algebras don't
have any problem with change (dynamics), and dynamics seems to be LL's most
salent feature. I'm not sure though I like the way dynamics is admitted
into EAs: it's the same way Einstein resolved the paradoxes with the speed
of light.

> John Mitchell
John, could you please set up public permissions to the last two summary
files (20.summary, 21.partial) on theory.stanford.edu: pub/linear?

Best regards,

Vladimir Alexiev (PhD student)   <vladimir@cs.ualberta.ca> 
615 GSB, Dept. Comp. Sci., Univ. Alberta, Edmonton, AB  T6G 2H1, CANADA