Advertisement

Coalgebraic Simulations and Congruences

  • H. Peter Gumm
  • Mehdi Zarrad
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8446)

Abstract

In a recent article Gorín and Schröder [3] study \(\lambda \)-simulations of coalgebras and relate them to preservation of positive formulae. Their main results assume that \(\lambda \) is a set of monotonic predicate liftings and their proofs are set-theoretical. We give a different definition of simulation, called strong simulation, which has several advantages:

Our notion agrees with that of [3] in the presence of monotonicity, but it has the advantage, that it allows diagrammatic reasoning, so several results from the mentioned paper can be obtained by simple diagram chases. We clarify the role of \(\lambda \)-monotonicity by showing the equivalence of
  • \(\lambda \) is monotonic

  • every simulation is strong

  • every bisimulation is a (strong) simulation

  • every F-congruence is a (strong) simulation.

We relate the notion to bisimulations and \(F\)-congruences - which are defined as pullbacks of homomorphisms. We show that
  • if \(\lambda \) is a separating set, then each difunctional strong simulation is an \(F\)-congruence,

  • if \(\lambda \) is monotonic, then the converse is true: if each difunctional strong simulation is an \(F\)-congruence, then \(\lambda \) is separating.

References

  1. 1.
    Aczel, P., Mendler, N.: A final coalgebra theorem. In: Pitt, D.H., Rydeheard, D.E., Dybjer, P., Pitts, A.M., Poigné, A. (eds.) CTCS 1989. LNCS, vol. 389, pp. 357–365. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cîrstea, C., Kurz, A., Pattinson, D., Schröder, L., Venema, Y.: Modal logics are coalgebraic. In: BCS International Academic Conference, pp. 128–140 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorín, D., Schröder, L.: Simulations and bisimulations for coalgebraic modal logics. In: Heckel, R. (ed.) CALCO 2013. LNCS, vol. 8089, pp. 253–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gumm, H.P., Schröder, T.: Types and coalgebraic structure. Algebra Universalis 53, 229–252 (2005)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Myers, R., Pattinson, D., Schröder, L.: Coalgebraic hybrid logic. In: de Alfaro, L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5504, pp. 137–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pattinson, D.: Coalgebraic modal logic: soundness, completeness and decidability of local consequence. Theor. Comput. Sci. 309(2–3), 177–193 (2003)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riguet, J.: Relations binaires, fermetures, correspondances de Galois. Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France 76, 114–155 (1948)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 249, 3–80 (2000)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schröder, L.: Expressivity of coalgebraic modal logic: the limits and beyond. In: Sassone, V. (ed.) FOSSACS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3441, pp. 440–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schröder, L.: Expressivity of coalgebraic modal logic: the limits and beyond. Theor. Comput. Sci. 390(2–3), 230–247 (2008)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schröder, L., Pattinson, D.: Coalgebraic correspondence theory. In: Ong, L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6014, pp. 328–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Staton, S.: Relating coalgebraic notions of bisimulation. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 7(1) (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trnková, V.: Some properties of set functors. Comm. Math. Univ. Carol. 10(2), 323–352 (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philipps-Universität MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations