Talk:Denotational semantics

message: Hi. I have moved the material giving details on concurrency and actor semantics back to the page on Denotational semantics of the Actor model. This page has to give a high level overview of the subject. Actors, concurrency and interaction get a fair mention as it is, and there are links for those readers who want to know more. No offense intended to the editor who moved the material here. Sam (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you should know from your previous work, sequential and functional denotational semantics are special cases that are interesting mainly in how they illustrate and motivate the general case.75.10.249.77 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors, concurrency etc 

message: The current article is a mess.  It treats all kinds of special cases in a disorganized fashion and doesn't properly develop and motivate the general case.67.180.94.147 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to have been resolved.70.231.253.115 (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps unfortunately, the current state of the subject is a little disorganized, so this is unavoidable. The idea that the Actor Model is the "general case" is a valid position but it is not universally held. Sam (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Sam has imposed his very narrow notion of compositionality in terms of the composition of continuous functions.  This is entirely insufficient in general.  Someone should restore the more general case and includes Sam's new material as a special case.71.198.220.76 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have written, the approach is concerned with composition of morphisms in a category, and has little to do with continuous functions per se. This is the general approach to denotational semantics that is taken by Abramsky, Girard, Gunter, Hennessy, Plotkin, Stoy, Tennent, Winskel, and many others. It is the style of denotational semantics that is used in logic, especially categorical logic, see for instance the books by Lambek and Scott, Jacobs, Johnstone. You might be interested to note that Hildebrandt uses this style in his semantics of fairness. It is certainly not a narrow notion, nor a special case. Sam (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I wonder whether your ideas might actually fit into this framework... I will think about it. Sam (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The undue emphasis on the actor model comes from the days when Carl Hewitt was editing here. Feel free to give it proper WP:WEIGHT. The "further reading" list could use some filtering as well. You are certainly more knowledgeable than me in this area. Pcap ping 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current article is a mess 

message: There is a missing publication:
*What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social, COIN@AAMAS. 2006.] for the Timed Diagrams denotational model.
Also the Scott quotation at the end comes from Clinger's thesis.171.66.75.211 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What page of Clinger's thesis? I looked through briefly but didn't see it, and I can't search in the scanned PDF. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing references 

message: I see that tag has been here a while. I think it should just be removed. Usually I would be all for removing excess links, e.g., if as is usually the case they were to someone's thesis or some paper that no one but the author's mom read but the references in that list seem very relevant to me. This is a very deep topic and I think for once additional references are useful for example to grad students who might be starting to do research here. Does anyone want to make a case for why the tag should stay or specific references to delete? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded List tag 

message: There are many mentions to "phrases" in the article. Are they meant to be mentions to "statements"?--trylks (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... What does the source say? Oooh... there seems to be no source at all. I added an  tag after the paragraph! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrases 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Denotational semantics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402095417/https://blog.itu.dk/SMDS-F2010/files/2010/04/milner-2009-the-space-and-motion-of-communicating-agents.pdf to https://blog.itu.dk/SMDS-F2010/files/2010/04/milner-2009-the-space-and-motion-of-communicating-agents.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The F maps partial graph f  of a function (here factorial) to (bigger) partial graph F(f) of the function, is defined on set of pairs, and describes one level of recursive computation. Formally F(f)={[n (if (n==0) then 1 else n*fn)] | [(n-1) fn] \in f}. or F(f)=\{[0\ 1]\} \cup \{[(n+1)\ ((n+1)*fn)] | [n\ fn] \in f\}.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj14 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of F