shorts/theorems.tex

   1 %&pre
   2 \title{Theorems for free!}
   3 \date{2016{-}04{-}13}
   4 \begin{document}
   5 \maketitle
   6 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
   7 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
   8 Wadler suggests that by looking at parameterized functions you can say things
   9 about a particular concrete function of that type. The paper also updates the
  10 proof for the abstraction theorem.
  11
  12 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
  13 The first claim is strengthened by showing a long list of example theorems
  14 extracted from just the parameterized type. Wadler shows that there is often
  15 only one function that truly matches the type and Wadler shows several useful
  16 properties that you can derive from the parametric definition. For the second
  17 subject of the paper a full proof is provided.
  18
  19 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
  20 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
  21 The paper is clear and also introduces the basic theory before elaborating on
  22 the new concepts. This makes it a easy read. The examples are illustrative and
  23 strengthen the proposition.
  24
  25 %Weaknesses
  26 A possible weakness is the abundance of algebra and formulas. While this is
  27 very necessary it can be good to express some of the formalisations in natural
  28 language before coining the formula.
  29
  30 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
  31 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
  32 %would you recommend acceptance?)
  33 %Comments on quality of writing
  34 The paper is succinct, concise and ordered. The goal of the publication is to
  35 show the usefulness of theorems that follow from the parameterized function
  36 definition which it reaches successfully. The paper is well embedded in
  37 existing literature.
  38
  39 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
  40 %Queries for discussion
  41 \begin{itemize}
  42         \item The updated abstraction theorem proof seems a little out of tune and
  43                 could it be a different publication? This concerns Section~6 mostly
  44         \item
  45 \end{itemize}
  46 \end{document}