You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Doing this properly should simplify transitive relation searches, making them more efficient. The idea would be to use canonical forms just for searching for known relations, equating things with the same canonical form as needed, but not allowing the actual form of the canonical forms to dictate the form the proof. That is, it shouldn't matter what the canonical forms are, as long as they form proper equivalence classes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Doing this properly should simplify transitive relation searches, making them more efficient. The idea would be to use canonical forms just for searching for known relations, equating things with the same canonical form as needed, but not allowing the actual form of the canonical forms to dictate the form the proof. That is, it shouldn't matter what the canonical forms are, as long as they form proper equivalence classes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: