Thank you, Charles, Yuri, Wes and Bart!

It was a very interesting discussion .

I still didn't get how a "crash" case is implicitly defined.

I can understand that mathematical sets don't have duplicate and therefore duplicate values are excluded either by UNION or by { }.

I can also see how "crash" could be formalized in various ways, I just don't know which would be the most appropriate. So basically I don't see the set constraint or a definition of an "inconsistent set". I think both pairs { (a1,v1), (a1,v2) } in this set are valid mathematically and there needs to be another condition!? I am not sure.

Thanks!!!

posted by ivan_

]]>It was sort of funny how Bart & Wes were trying to specialize the general semantics to fit modern practice and machine architecture so they could connect it with classical computer science. But this is basically just explaining how computer science evolved and the algorithm can be formally defined, even though we just have basic common knowledge of this if we program, but as this lecture shows, the math and science and formal explanation shows how computing can indeed be complex and its great that we can abstract away the need for knowing all this to create a massive learning curve.

@ivan_ I've understood the meaning of "crash" to be interchangeable with "fail". So things fail and don't work which implies a crash to happen and being invalid. But that is just my understanding and not his formal explanation on the subject.

posted by HeavensRevenge

]]>for every Ai where i = {1..k} and k < (infinity), there exists at least two tuples in the form (A, V)i, where Aj = Al, while Vj <> Vl and j <> l, and j,l = {1..k}.

This to me would be a definition of a "crash" or inconsistent state. **I think (which doesn't bear a lot of weight ).**

Thanks!

posted by ivan_

]]>