>> Khalaf: The def is not supposed to yield an algorithm directly, but
>> to clearly and intuitively explain what this compliance def is
>> checking for. The algorithm one may use to check "observable
>> compliance" should not a brute force one from the def, and that's
>> quite obvious to tell (you could have infinitely many
>> minimum-no-fault-...-completions). Also, the definition is still
>> being clarified.
>
mm1: Please, use the word 'conformance.' Compliance is most often a
regulatory, mandatory requirement that has legal implications on
software performance. I believe in the context of this discussion
conformance, not compliance applies. They are very different things.
Thank you.
