| Ouch. |
[Oct. 18th, 2010|11:43 am]
Lindsey Kuper
|
I think that "Sound and Complete Models of Contracts" might be the most difficult paper I've ever tried to read. I feel like I'm drowning in an ocean of stuff I don't understand, and every now and then a piece of driftwood (representing the occasional part that I do understand) floats up and I clutch at it for a while, and just when I'm starting to catch my breath, a giant wave comes along and rips it out of my grasp. Then the piece of driftwood comes back and bonks me on the head. |
|
|
| Comments: |
To be fair, I don't know if I've ever read the Blume/McAllester paper. I know of it, of course, but I think somehow I've avoided it. Not purposely, of course, but maybe I should sometime just to know that I have.
Oh, and have you read Blume/Findler yet?
Contracts as Pairs of Projections? I'm on that one now, and so far, it's a walk in the park compared to Blume and McAllester.
Indeed, that's why I would have suggested it if it wasn't already on your plate. I think I've never read B/Mc just because I read B/F first and never felt the urge to read the former, since I knew it would be more baroque.
For those playing at home, I've now finished reading Findler and Blume and I love it. It makes me happy in my heart. Although maybe after having to claw my way through as much of Blume and McAllester as I did, anything would have made me happy.
I understood the abstract and the gist of the introduction ... there's no way I'd make it through the rest, so I'm not going to try. ;-) | |
