Talk:Mu calculus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Requested move

Modal μ calculus → Modal mu calculus — By WP:ENGLISH, pages names should use the Latin alphabet only. eboy 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Comment I think there are bigger problems with the article name, and with the article's very existence, than that issue. Isn't it already covered somewhere else? Is this terminology in commen enough use anywhere in the real world that a redirect from it to somewhere else would be useful? Or is this just something made up for a Wikipedia article name? Gene Nygaard 02:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    There's mu operator article; this one should probably be a redirect with a merger (if we have that LTL logic explained somewhere). Duja 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe it is better to name the article mu calculus, i.e. to leave out the word modal. In either case, this logic (or family of logics) certainly deserves a page on its own: a lot of research (both theory and applications) has been done on this subject, and it is certainly an established name in the field of computer science. Also, a Google search for mu calculus gives me almost a 100.000 hits. eboy 15:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I merged this to mu operator, as a substub not really worth a separate article. This mathematic area seems a bit esoteric (it's Greek to me I admit), so we'd better leave this to the experts. Duja 09:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

em... I don't want to call myself an expert on the mu calculus, although I am developing one right now. The fact that it seems esoteric, is because it is not a simple calculus. However, because something is not simple doesn't mean that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. To put it even stronger:

  • any book on model checking treats the mu-calculus;
  • mu-calculus is more expressive than LTL, CTL and CTL*.

Anyway, until there isn't any useful information on the mu-calculus, I can live with the article being a redirect to the mu operator. eboy 10:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)