Advertisement

Non-strongly Stable Orders Also Define Interesting Simulation Relations

  • Ignacio Fábregas
  • David de Frutos Escrig
  • Miguel Palomino
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5728)

Abstract

We present a study of the notion of coalgebraic simulation introduced by Hughes and Jacobs. Although in their original paper they allow any functorial order in their definition of coalgebraic simulation, for the simulation relations to have good properties they focus their attention on functors with orders which are strongly stable. This guarantees a so-called “composition-preserving” property from which all the desired good properties follow. We have noticed that the notion of strong stability not only ensures such good properties but also “distinguishes the direction” of the simulation. For example, the classic notion of simulation for labeled transition systems, the relation “p is simulated by q”, can be defined as a coalgebraic simulation relation by means of a strongly stable order, whereas the opposite relation, “p simulates q”, cannot. Our study was motivated by some interesting classes of simulations that illustrate the application of these results: covariant-contravariant simulations and conformance simulations.

Keywords

Good Property Label Transition System Process Algebra Stable Order Opposite Relation 
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.
    Aczel, P., Mendler, N.P.: A final coalgebra theorem. In: Dybjer, P., Pitts, A.M., Pitt, D.H., Poigné, A., Rydeheard, D.E. (eds.) Category Theory and Computer Science. LNCS, vol. 389, pp. 357–365. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloom, B., Istrail, S., Meyer, A.R.: Bisimulation can’t be traced. J. ACM 42(1), 232–268 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Frutos-Escrig, D., Gregorio-Rodríguez, C.: Universal coinductive characterisations of process semantics. In: Ausiello, G., Karhumäki, J., Mauri, G., Ong, C.-H.L. (eds.) IFIP TCS. IFIP, vol. 273, pp. 397–412. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Frutos Escrig, D., Gregorio-Rodríguez, C., Palomino, M.: On the unification of semantics for processes: observational semantics. In: Nielsen, M., Kucera, A., Miltersen, P.B., Palamidessi, C., Tuma, P., Valencia, F.D. (eds.) SOFSEM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5404, pp. 279–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groote, J.F., Vaandrager, F.W.: Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence. Inf. Comput. 100(2), 202–260 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hughes, J., Jacobs, B.: Simulations in coalgebra. TCS 327(1-2), 71–108 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobs, B., Hughes, J.: Simulations in coalgebra. In: Gumm, H.P. (ed.) CMCS 2003: 6th International Workshop on Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science, vol. 82 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsen, K.G., Skou, A.: Bisimulation through probabilistic testing. Inf. Comput. 94(1), 1–28 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leduc, G.: A framework based on implementation relations for implementing LOTOS specifications. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 25(1), 23–41 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lynch, N.A., Tuttle, M.R.: Hierarchical correctness proofs for distributed algorithms. In: Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 137–151 (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park, D.: Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) GI-TCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 104, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tretmans, J.: Conformance testing with labelled transition systems: Implementation relations and test generation. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29(1), 49–79 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Glabbeek, R.J.: The linear time-branching time spectrum I: The semantics of concrete, sequential processes. In: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) Handbook of process algebra, pp. 3–99 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ignacio Fábregas
    • 1
  • David de Frutos Escrig
    • 1
  • Miguel Palomino
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y ComputaciónUCMUSA

Personalised recommendations