Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Spec should be higher level #1

Open
santolucito opened this issue Sep 23, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Spec should be higher level #1

santolucito opened this issue Sep 23, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@santolucito
Copy link
Member

F [passage <- toCave()];

Why not

F inCave()

@ravenrothkopf
Copy link
Member

i'm not sure I understand. wouldn't that be an assumption because inCave(passage) is an input from the environment which is already implied with this assumption? [passage <- toCave()] -> F inCave(passage); I have

F [passage <- toCave()]; 
F [passage <- toMarket()];

there to invoke the arbiter behavior, but lmk if you have other ideas on how to do this!

@santolucito
Copy link
Member Author

It is an input from the environment but with the assumption it is not "fully controlled" by the environment. The environment needs to obey the assumption (or the assumption is false and we trivially win the game).

We want the system to not just update the passage with toMarket but keep doing that until we actually get to the market. So the spec really should say, force us to get the market, not just update the passage. Does that make sense?

@santolucito
Copy link
Member Author

I say does it make sense because I'm not 100% sure it makes sense to me either

@ravenrothkopf
Copy link
Member

yeah I think it does! like ideally the automaton should stay in the same state outputting toMarket() until atMarket() returns true. that seems to work okay with the spec I have.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants