A Complete Axiomatization for Observational Congruence of Prioritized Finite-State Behaviors

  • Mario Bravetti
  • Roberto Gorrieri
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1853)

Abstract

Milner’s complete proof system for observational congruence is crucially based on the possibility to equate τ divergent expressions to non-divergent ones by means of the axiom recX.(τ.X + E) = recX.τ.E. In the presence of a notion of priority, where e.g. actions of type δ have a lower priority than silent τ actions, this axiom is no longer sound because a τ action performable by E is pre-empted in the left-hand term but not in the right-hand term. The problem of axiomatizing priority using the standard observational congruence has been open for a long time. Here we show that this can be done by introducing an auxiliary operator pri(E), by suitably modifying the axiom above and by introducing some new axioms. Our technique provides a complete axiomatization for Milner’s observational congruence over finite-state terms of a process algebra with priority and recursion.

Keywords

Parallel Operator Operational Semantic Operational Rule Process Algebra Complete Axiomatization 
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. 1.
    E. Badouel, P. Darondeau, “On Guarded Recursion”, in Theoretical Computer Science 82(2):403–408, 1991MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bravetti, R. Gorrieri, “A Complete Axiomatization for Observational Congruence of Prioritized Finite-State Behaviors”, Technical Report UBLCS-99-18, University of Bologna (Italy), 1999Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Cleaveland, G. Luttgen, V. Natarajan, “A Process Algebra with Distributed Priorities”, in Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’ 96), LNCS 1119:34–49, 1996Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Cleaveland, G. Luttgen, V. Natarajan, “Priority in Process Algebras”, to appear in Handbook of Process Algebra, Elsevier, 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Cleaveland, M. Hennessy, “Priorities in Process Algebra”, in Information and Computation 87:58–77, 1990CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Hermanns, M. Lohrey, “Priority and Maximal Progress Are Completely Axiomatisable (Extended Abstract)”, in Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’ 98), LNCS 1466:237–252, Nice (France), 1998Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Hermanns, M. Lohrey, “Observational Congruence in a Stochastic Timed Calculus with Maximal Progress”, Technical Report IMMD-VII/7-97, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1997Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Milner, “Communication and Concurrency”, Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Milner, “A complete axiomatization for observational congruence of finitestate behaviours”, in Information and Computation 81:227–247, 1989MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Natarajan, I. Christoff, L. Christoff, R. Cleaveland, “Priorities and Abstraction in Process Algebra”, in Proc. of Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS 880:217–230, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Bravetti
    • 1
  • Roberto Gorrieri
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’InformazioneUniversitá di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations