Advertisement

An ω-Complete Equational Specification of Interleaving

Extended Abstract
  • W. J. Fokkink
  • S. P. Luttik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1853)

Abstract

We consider the process theory PA that includes an operation for parallel composition, based on the interleaving paradigm. We prove that the standard set of axioms of PA is not ω-complete by providing a set of axioms that are valid in PA, but not derivable from the standard ones. We prove that extending PA with this set yields an ω- complete specification, which is finite in a setting with finitely many actions.

Keywords

Induction Hypothesis Binary Operation Sequential Composition Parallel Composition Atomic Action 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aceto, L. and Hennessy, M. (1993). Towards action-refinement in process algebras. Information and Computation, 103(2), 204–269.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Baeten, J. C. M. and Weijland, W. P. (1990). Process Algebra. Number 18 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergstra, J. A. and Klop, J. W. (1984). Process algebra for synchronous communication. Information and Control, 60(1–3), 109–137.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Castellani, I. and Hennessy, M. (1989). Distributed bisimulations. Journal of the ACM, 36(4), 887–911.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Groote, J. F. (1990). A new strategy for proving ω-completeness applied to process algebra. In J. Baeten and J. Klop, editors, Proceedings of CONCUR’90, volume 458 of LNCS, pages 314–331, Amsterdam. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Heering, J. (1986). Partial evaluation and ω-completeness of algebraic specifications. Theoretical Computer Science, 43, 149–167.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Hennessy, M. (1988). Axiomatising finite concurrent processes. SI AM Journal of Computing, 17(5), 997–1017.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirshfeld, Y. and Jerrum, M. (1998). Bisimulation equivalence is decidable for normed process algebra. LFCS Report ECS-LFCS-98-386, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  9. Hirshfeld, Y. and Jerrum, M. (1999). Bisimulation equivalence is decidable for normed process algebra. In J. Wiedermann, P. van Emde Boas, and M. Nielsen, editors, Proceedings of ICALP’99, volume 1644 of LNCS, pages 412–421, Prague. Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Lazrek, A., Lescanne, P., and Thiel, J.-J. (1990). Tools for proving inductive equalities, relative completeness, and ω-completeness. Information and Computation, 84(1), 47–70.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Milner, R. (1989). Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Milner, R. and Moller, F. (1993). Unique decomposition of processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 107, 357–363.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Moller, F. (1989). Axioms for Concurrency. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  14. Moller, F. (1990). The importance of the left merge operator in process algebras. In M. Paterson, editor, Proceedings of ICALP’90, volume 443 of LNCS, pages 752–764, Warwick. Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. J. Fokkink
    • 1
  • S. P. Luttik
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations