DOI: 10.29007/xqx9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Turchin's Relation and Subsequence Relation in Loop Approximation

Abstract: The paper studies the subsequence relation through a notion of an intransitive binary relation on words in traces generated by prefix-rewriting systems. The relation was introduced in 1988 by V.F. Turchin for loop approximation in supercompilation. We study properties of this relation and introduce some refinements of the subsequence relation that inherit the useful features of Turchin's relation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Turchin's relation can be used together with the homeomorphic embedding relation without the loss of well-binariness, and can be used not only for deciding when to terminate the computation path but also for deciding how to generalize the configurations. 15 If all the configurations in the computation tree contained no branching (i.e., were consisting only of unary function calls and constructors), Turchin's relation could be considered as a "one-gap version" of the homeomorphic embedding for the callstacks, and could be replaced by an annotated version of the homeomorphic embedding as shown in [12]. However, for terms having the tree structure (even with only one branching node), the "one-gap" (or even "n-gap") relation is not well-binary (that is also shown in [12]).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Turchin's relation can be used together with the homeomorphic embedding relation without the loss of well-binariness, and can be used not only for deciding when to terminate the computation path but also for deciding how to generalize the configurations. 15 If all the configurations in the computation tree contained no branching (i.e., were consisting only of unary function calls and constructors), Turchin's relation could be considered as a "one-gap version" of the homeomorphic embedding for the callstacks, and could be replaced by an annotated version of the homeomorphic embedding as shown in [12]. However, for terms having the tree structure (even with only one branching node), the "one-gap" (or even "n-gap") relation is not well-binary (that is also shown in [12]).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15 If all the configurations in the computation tree contained no branching (i.e., were consisting only of unary function calls and constructors), Turchin's relation could be considered as a "one-gap version" of the homeomorphic embedding for the callstacks, and could be replaced by an annotated version of the homeomorphic embedding as shown in [12]. However, for terms having the tree structure (even with only one branching node), the "one-gap" (or even "n-gap") relation is not well-binary (that is also shown in [12]). So, considering the call-stack configurations as words is somewhat essential for making Turchin's relation well-binary.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations