I tend to find Kripke semantics easier fwiw. But if you’ve done a bunch of sheaf theory then this perspective also seems reasonable (though I will say it seems somewhat overkill to me, but what can I say, I’m no sheaf theorist).
Also I somewhat prefer to have the image of Dana Scott from Suits in mind when I think about Scott! It’s a lie I tell myself that makes me happy. But thanks for showing the man himself—a truly brilliant logician!
Yeah, I just have an entirely unreasonable love for continuity :-)
These days, of course, we are not surprised seeing maps from spaces of programs to continuous spaces (with all these Turing complete neural machines around us). But back then what Scott did was a revelation, the “semantic mapping” from lambda terms of lambda calculus to a topological space homeomorphic to the space of its own continuous transformations.
I tend to find Kripke semantics easier fwiw. But if you’ve done a bunch of sheaf theory then this perspective also seems reasonable (though I will say it seems somewhat overkill to me, but what can I say, I’m no sheaf theorist).
Also I somewhat prefer to have the image of Dana Scott from Suits in mind when I think about Scott! It’s a lie I tell myself that makes me happy. But thanks for showing the man himself—a truly brilliant logician!
Yeah, I just have an entirely unreasonable love for continuity :-)
These days, of course, we are not surprised seeing maps from spaces of programs to continuous spaces (with all these Turing complete neural machines around us). But back then what Scott did was a revelation, the “semantic mapping” from lambda terms of lambda calculus to a topological space homeomorphic to the space of its own continuous transformations.