I've asked the following question on CST:

Is there an efficient algorithm to check for duplicator-invariant equivalence on symmetric interaction combinators?

I had the honor of having the paper author answering it, which greatly helped me understand the situation. The problem is, given my new understanding, I now realize that my question, as written, is very contrived, and what I'm looking for could be asked much more succinctly. Yet, since I already got this very insightful answer, it makes no sense to edit the original question. But if I opened another question, it would have almost the same title, and its body would essentially be a greatly improved version of the current body. Keep in mind his answer doesn't address what I'm looking for, which was not clear on the original question, since I didn't have a proper understanding of the problem.

What should I do in this situation?



You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .