Talk:Separation logic

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Bart Jacobs (Leuven) in topic Introduction of paragraph on interference freedom

and edit

Stating "  is the right adjoint of  " is useless without first giving any notion of what   and   are meant to represent. Clconway (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's even more useless considering there are at least 10 different mathematical meanings of adjoint and it's not clear which is intended. Clconway (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The previous two comments are outdated, but their author refuses to accept their removal. Apparently on Wikipedia you are not allowed to edit what someone else wrote. Rgrig (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi, there. I am said author. I stipulate that my year-and-a-half-old comments are outdated. Not sure what you mean by my "refus[ing] to accept their removal" since this is the first I've heard of it; maybe there's a bot running to prevent non-self edits on Talk pages. As far as I know, WP practice is to leave outdated comments in place as an archive of the discussion. Clconway (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I see now that you're talking about an edit from last March I had forgotten about completely. Yes, I reverted your attempt to remove my comments. See WP:TPOC: "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."
Again, I freely admit my earlier comments are no longer applicable to the article. Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. Clconway (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Precedence of * edit

I think the precedence rules of the new operators are not defined. I don't know them, so I cannot write anything about that, but the formula   assumes that the user knows if   or   has a higher precedence. Lykos42 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Introduction of paragraph on interference freedom edit

I have lately created a page on Interference freedom. It now says it is an orphan because no other wiki page links to it. I just added this paragraph, not simply to get it out of orphan-status but because I do think it is interesting to see how Interference freedom fits into this whole picture. DavidGries (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, it would make a lot of sense to add a section on extensions for concurrency to the article on Hoare logic. It would probably also make sense to add a section on alternative approaches for concurrency reasoning to this article. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply