Advertisement

When Ambients Cannot Be Opened

  • Iovka Boneva
  • Jean-Marc Talbot
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2620)

Abstract

We investigate expressiveness of a fragment of the ambient calculus, a formalism for describing distributed and mobile computations. More precisely, we study expressiveness of the pure and public ambient calculus from which the capability open has been removed, in terms of the reachability problem of the reduction relation. Surprisingly, we show that even for this very restricted fragment, the reachability problem is not decidable. At a second step, for a slightly weaker reduction relation, we prove that reachability can be decided by reducing this problem to markings reachability for Petri nets. Finally, we show that the name-convergence problem as well as the model-checking problem turn out to be undecidable for both the original and the weaker reduction relation.

Keywords

Normal Form Parallel Operator Reduction Relation Label Transition System Reduction Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    T. Amtoft, A. J. Kfoury, and S.M. Pericás-Geertsen. What are polymorphically-typed ambients? In 10th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP 2001), LNCS 2028, pages 206–220. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bugliesi, G. Castagna, and S. Crafa. Boxed ambients. In Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software (TACS 2001), LNCS 2215. Springer, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Busi and G. Zavattaro. On the expressiveness of movement in pure mobile ambients. In Foundations of Wide Area Network Computing, ENTCS 66(3). Elsevier, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Cardelli and A.D. Gordon. Anytime, anywhere: Modal logics for mobile ambients. In 27th Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’00), pages 365–377, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Cardelli and A.D. Gordon. Mobile ambients. Theoretical Computer Science, 240:177–213, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Charatonik, A. D. Gordon, and J.-M. Talbot. Finite-control mobile ambients. In European Symposium on Programming (ESOP’02), LNCS 2305, pages 295–313. Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Charatonik and J.-M. Talbot. The decidability of model checking mobile ambients. In Computer Science Logic (CSL’01), LNCS 2142, pages 339–354. Springer, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Dal Zilio. Spatial congruence for ambients is decidable. In 6th Asian Computing Science Conference (ASIAN’00), volume 1961 of LNCS, pages 88–103. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Feret. Abstract interpretation-based static analysis of mobile ambients. In Eighth International Static Analysis Symposium (SAS’01), LNCS 2126. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. D. Gordon and L. Cardelli. Equational properties of mobile ambients. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 12:1–38, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.R. Hansen, J.G. Jensen, F. Nielson, and H. Riis Nielson. Abstract interpretation of mobile ambients. In Static Analysis (SAS’99), LNCS 1694, pages 134–148. Springer, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Hirschkoff. Mise en Euvre de preuves de bisimulation. PhD thesis, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Hirschkoff, E. Lozes, and D. Sangiorgi. Separability, expressiveness, and decidability in the ambient logic. In Logic in Computer Science (LICS’02), pages 423–432. IEEE, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Levi and D. Sangiorgi. Controlling interference in ambients. In 27th Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’00), pages 352–364, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E.W. Mayr. An Algorithm for the General Petri Net Reachability Problem. SIAM Journal of Computing, 13(3):441–460, 1984.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Milner, J. Parrow, and J. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes, I and II. Information and Computation, 100(1):1–40,41-77, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Minsky. Recursive Unsolvability of Post’s Problem of “Tag” and others Topics in the Theory of Turing Machines. Annals of Math., 74:437–455, 1961.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Nielson, H. Riis Nielson, R.R. Hansen, and J.G. Jensen. Validating firewalls in mobile ambients. In Concurrency Theory (Concur’99), LNCS 1664, pages 463–477. Springer, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Teller, P. Zimmer, and D. Hirschkoff. Using ambients to control resources. In CONCUR 2002—Concurrency Theory, LNCS 2421, pages 288–303. Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Zimmer. On the Expressiveness of Pure Safe Ambients. Mathematical Structures of Computer Science, 2002. To appear.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iovka Boneva
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Talbot
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Informatique Fondamentale de LilleFrance

Personalised recommendations