Commit af0d3b95 authored by Ralf Jung's avatar Ralf Jung
Browse files

typo fix

parent 6b839469
...@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ We start by defining the COFE of \emph{step-indexed propositions}: For every ste ...@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ We start by defining the COFE of \emph{step-indexed propositions}: For every ste
X \nequiv{n} Y \eqdef{}& \All m \leq n. m \in X \Lra m \in Y X \nequiv{n} Y \eqdef{}& \All m \leq n. m \in X \Lra m \in Y
\end{align*} \end{align*}
Notice that with this notion of $\SProp$ is already hidden in the validity predicate $\mval_n$ of a CMRA: Notice that with this notion of $\SProp$ is already hidden in the validity predicate $\mval_n$ of a CMRA:
We could equivalently require every CRMA to define $\mval_{-}(-) : \monoid \nfn \SProp$, replacing \ruleref{cmra-valid-ne} and \ruleref{cmra-valid-mono}. We could equivalently require every CMRA to define $\mval_{-}(-) : \monoid \nfn \SProp$, replacing \ruleref{cmra-valid-ne} and \ruleref{cmra-valid-mono}.
Now we can rewrite $\UPred(\monoid)$ as monotone step-indexed predicates over $\monoid$, where the definition of a ``monotone'' function here is a little funny. Now we can rewrite $\UPred(\monoid)$ as monotone step-indexed predicates over $\monoid$, where the definition of a ``monotone'' function here is a little funny.
\begin{align*} \begin{align*}
......
Supports Markdown
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment