A maybe-minor iffy thing about the current condensation formalism is that given two “essentially identical” random variable models M1=(Ω,(Xi)i∈I) and M2=(Ω,(Xi)i∈(I∪{∗})) where X∗:Ω→{∗} is a constant/trivial random variable (and thus adding no information to the model), we cannot say that they are equivalent. Equivalence of RVMs as defined in the paper requires the index sets to be equinumerous, but here they’re not: |I∪{∗}|=|I|+1.
One way to patch this would be to require the X’s to be non-trivial, but maybe there’s a more elegant solution.
A maybe-minor iffy thing about the current condensation formalism is that given two “essentially identical” random variable models M1=(Ω,(Xi)i∈I) and M2=(Ω,(Xi)i∈(I∪{∗})) where X∗:Ω→{∗} is a constant/trivial random variable (and thus adding no information to the model), we cannot say that they are equivalent. Equivalence of RVMs as defined in the paper requires the index sets to be equinumerous, but here they’re not: |I∪{∗}|=|I|+1.
One way to patch this would be to require the X’s to be non-trivial, but maybe there’s a more elegant solution.