Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complexity analysis of propositional concurrent programs using domino tiling

  • Published:
Mathematical systems theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexities of the possible rendezvous and the lockout problems for propositional concurrent programs are investigated in detail. We develop a unified strategy, based on domino tiling, to show that the above two problems with respect to a variety of propositional concurrent programs are complete for a broad spectrum of complexity classes, ranging from NLOGSPACE, PTIME, NP, PSPACE to EXPTIME. Our technique is novel in the sense that it demonstrates how two seemingly unrelated models, namely, propositional concurrent programs and dominoes, can be linked together in a natural and elegant fashion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berger, R. The undecidability of the domino problem.Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 66, 1966.

  2. Chandra, A., Kozen, D., and Stockmeyer, L. Alternation.J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 28:114–133, 1981.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chlebus, B. Domino-tiling games.J. Comput. System Sci., 32:374–392, 1986.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Chlebus, B. Proving NP-completeness using bounded tiling.J. Inform. Process. Cybernet. EIK, 8:479–484, 1987.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Fischer, M., and Ladner, R. Prepositional dynamic logic of regular programs.J. Comput. System Sci., 18:194–211, 1979.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Gradel, E. Domino games and complexity.SIAM J. Comput., 19:787–804, 1990.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Harel, D. Dynamic logic. InHandbook of Philosophical Logic (D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds.), Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 497–604, 1984.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Harel, D. Recurring dominoes: making the highly undecidable highly understandable.Ann. Discrete Math., 24:51–72, 1985.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Harel, D. Effective transformations on infinite trees, with applications to high undecidability, dominoes, and fairness.J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 33(l):224–248, 1986.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Hopcroft, J., and Ullman, J.Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA, 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Kanellakis, P., and Smolka, S. On the analysis of cooperation and antagonism in networks of communicating processes.Algorithmica, 3:421–450, 1988.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kozen, D., and Tiuryn, J. Logics of programs. InHandbook of Theoretical Computer Science (J. van Leeuwen, ed.), Vol. B, Eisevier, Amsterdam, pp. 789–840, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ladner, R. The complexity of problems in systems of communicating sequential processes.J. Comput. System Sci., 21:179–194, 1980.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis, H. Complexity of solvable cases of the decision problem for the predicate calculus.Proc. 19th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 35–47, 1978.

  15. Lewis, H., and Papadimitriou, C.Elements of the Theory of Computation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Peleg, D. Concurrent dynamic logic.J Assoc. Comput. Mach., 34:450–479, 1987.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Peleg, D. Communication in concurrent dynamic logic.J. Comput. SystemSci., 35:23–58, 1987.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Pratt, V. Models of program logics.Proc. 20th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 115–122, 1979.

  19. Pratt, V. A near-optimal method for reasoning about actions.J. Comput. System Sci., 20:231–254, 1980.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Savlsberg, M., and van Emde Boas, P. Bounded tiling, an alternative to satisfiability?Proc. 2nd Frege Conference, Schwerin 1984, Mathematische Forschung, pp. 354–363, 1984.

  21. Taylor, R. Complexity of analyzing the synchronization structure of concurrent programs.Acta Inform., 19:57–84, 1983.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Taylor, R. A general-purpose algorithm for analyzing concurrent programs.Comm. ACM, 26(5): 362–376, 1983.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. van Emde Boas, P. Dominoes are forever.Proc. 1st GTI Workshop (Paderborn), pp. 76–95, 1983.

  24. Wang, H. Proving theorems by pattern recognition, ii.Bell System Tech. J., 40:1–4, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yen, H. A multiparameter analysis of domino tiling with an application to concurrent systems.Theoret. Comput. Sci., 98:263–287, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 10764, Republic of China

    Hsu -Chun Yen

  2. Pulgwang-dong, Misong Apt. 11-708, Seoul 122, Korea

    Namhee Pak

Authors
  1. Hsu -Chun Yen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Namhee Pak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yen, H.C., Pak, N. Complexity analysis of propositional concurrent programs using domino tiling. Math. Systems Theory 26, 357–378 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01189855

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01189855

Keywords

Search

Navigation