Presenting intermediate results in the examination

Question

For questions that ask if K2 can simulate K1 and there is no indication as to whether we need to show the fixpoint computation, Is it necessary to show all the intermediate work? Sometimes, it saves time to just reduce the Kripke structures by intuition and show that there are non matching transitions between the two. Will it be sufficient to show the absence of the simulation relation and get the points?

Thanks :)

Answer 1

From a logical perspective, if the question whether a transition system simulates or bisimulates another one, you may answer that in any way that is "adequate". This means, a simply "yes" or "no" is not sufficient, you have to give any valid reason why it is so.

For instance, if the structure simulates another one, and you can guess a simulation relation and prove that it is one, it is fine. If you can prove that there does not exist one, it is also fine, but you have to make sure that your proof is a valid one.

From a more strategic perspective, I would not recommend this, since computing the relations if often feasible when you have some experience. And even if you have a mistake in there, you may still get some points, while for an invalid proof, it is not clear whether to give points.