Used a not-terrifically-worded question on MathOverflow and the fact that I had two hours to kill as an excuse to finally write out the cut-and-identity-based proof of the completeness of (weak) focusing for the negative fragment, where you don't have to admit that it's only weak focusing. I wrote out all the details in the Weak Focusing for Ordered Linear Logic tech report, but that TR has way the hell too much other stuff going on.
Profile
simrob
Page Summary
Style Credit
- Style: Descending for Paletteable by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot - Resources: Blue Jupiter
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags