From boaz@ccs.neu.edu Tue Jul 14 16:06:18 1998
Received: from taboor.ccs.neu.edu (boaz@taboor.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.185])
	by amber.ccs.neu.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA26144
	for <lieber@ccs.neu.edu>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Boaz Patt-Shamir <boaz@ccs.neu.edu>
To: Karl Lieberherr <lieber@ccs.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Doug's message
In-Reply-To: <199807141848.OAA06867@stockberg.ccs.neu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980714160215.8199A-100000@taboor.ccs.neu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: R

> 
> we said that {A->B} is equivalent to {A->{B,C},C->B}
> The source in both cases is A, B.
> 
> But the path A->C->B has no expansion in A->B.
> 
I hope that it's clear that the second is a substrategy of the first.
The confusion about the other direction is due to the fact that the
labeling as given is misleading.
Recall that there should be a name map mapping each node in the
suprestrategy to a node in the substrategy. Hence, to see that the second
startegy is a superstrategy the node labeled "C" in the secondstrategy
must be mapped to either A or B of the first.

Boaz