You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Paolo Perrone (Jun 04 2020 at 19:20):Hey all,
This is the thread for the final discussion call.
The discussion, besides being on Zoom, is livestreamed here: https://youtu.be/SsuosEodvyA
Paolo Perrone (Jun 04 2020 at 19:20):Date and time: Monday, 8 Jun, 16h UTC.
Paolo Perrone (Jun 08 2020 at 15:56):4 minutes!
Paolo Perrone (Jun 08 2020 at 17:07):Thanks so much to everyone for having this!
Bas Spitters (Jun 08 2020 at 17:08):Bart doesn't seem to be here. Does anyone know the precise language he was proposing, and how it improves on say easycrypt for cryptographic proofs?
Tomáš Gonda (Jun 08 2020 at 17:11):That was an amazing workshop, thanks to everyone involved!
Philipp G. Haselwarter (Jun 08 2020 at 17:14):@Bas Spitters I understood his comment as saying that EasyCrypt does not capture all of probabilistic reasoning, and that designing a logic that would is currently out of scope. Maybe @Alex Simpson knows more about what steps in this direction have been taken?
Paolo Perrone (Jun 08 2020 at 17:22):Tomáš Gonda said:
That was an amazing workshop, thanks to everyone involved!
This was so far above my expectations, that I can safely call it a supermartingale. :p
Arthur Parzygnat (Jun 08 2020 at 19:42):I agree. I had an excellent time and I'm really glad it materialized in the form of an online meeting. I enjoyed meeting many of you and attaching a face to all the people's works I've been reading (and have been meaning to read!). I am especially grateful for the wide variety of backgrounds present at the workshop and the openness of discussion and sharing all the useful knowledge. I'm looking forward to future meetings!
Rob Spekkens (Jun 09 2020 at 03:03):Thanks again to the organizers and all of the speakers. I learned a lot!
Alex Simpson (Jun 09 2020 at 07:45):Philipp G. Haselwarter said:
Bas Spitters I understood his comment as saying that EasyCrypt does not capture all of probabilistic reasoning, and that designing a logic that would is currently out of scope. Maybe Alex Simpson knows more about what steps in this direction have been taken?
All I can say is that the general goal of finding better logics/methods/techniques for reasoning about probabilistic systems is very interesting and potentially very useful. There is a lot of work going on in this direction in the verification community in computer science. There is so much being done, I find it a bit challenging to keep up with.
Bas Spitters (Jun 09 2020 at 10:45):@Alex Simpson do you have a few examples of what you have in mind?
Alex Simpson (Jun 09 2020 at 13:50):Bas Spitters said:
Alex Simpson do you have a few examples of what you have in mind?
@Bas Spitters I'm talking very generally about work on techniques/methods/logics for verification/synthesis/modelling of probabilistic programs/systems. This is really a huge and active area. I don't have a particularly clear mental picture of it, and I can't really single out any particular thread of work as of especial interest to people here. I was more emphasising the high degree of activity. If you look at any recent conference in semantics/verification/programming languages you will find plenty of examples of this kind of work.