Advertisement

Process Algebra in PVS

  • Twan Basten
  • Jozef Hooman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1579)

Abstract

The aim of this work is to investigate mechanical support for process algebra, both for concrete applications and theoretical properties. Two approaches are presented using the verification system PVS. One approach declares process terms as an uninterpreted type and specifies equality on terms by axioms. This is convenient for concrete applications where the rewrite mechanisms of PVS can be exploited. For the verification of theoretical results, often induction principles are needed. They are provided by the second approach where process terms are defined as an abstract datatype with a separate equivalence relation.

Keywords

Basic Term Process Algebra Process Term Concrete Application Inductive Proof 
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.
    G. J. Akkerman and J. C. M. Baeten. Term rewriting analysis in process algebra. CWI Quarterly, 4(4):257–267, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. C. M. Baeten and C. Verhoef. Concrete process algebra. In S. Abramsky, Dov M. Gabbay, and T. S. E. Maibaum, editors, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, volume 4, Semantic Modelling, pages 149–268. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. C. M. Baeten and W. P. Weijland. Process Algebra. Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. A. Bergstra, I. Bethke, and A. Ponse. Process algebra with iteration and nesting. The Computer Journal, 37(4):241–258, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. A. Bezem, R. N. Bol, and J. F. Groote. Formalizing process algebraic verifications in the calculus of constructions. Formal Aspects of Computing, 9(1):1–48, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Camilleri. A Higher Order Logic mechanization of the CSP failure-divergence semantics. In Proc. IV Higher Order Workshop, pages 123–150. Workshops in Computing, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Camilleri, P. Inverardi, and M. Nesi. Combining interaction and automation in process algebra verification. In TAPSOFT’91, pages 283–296. LNCS 494, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Cleaveland, J. Gada, P. Lewis, S. Smolka, O. Sokolsky, and S. Zhang. The Concurrency Factory-practical tools for specification, simulation, verification, and implementation. In Proc. DIMACS Workshop on Specification of Parallel Algorithms, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Groenboom, C. Hendriks, I. Polak, J. Terlouw, and J. T. Udding. Algebraic proof assistants in HOL. In Mathematics of Program Construction, pages 304–321. LNCS 947, Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. F. Groote, F. Monin, and J. Springintveld. A computer checked algebraic verification of a distributed summation algorithm. Computing Science Report 97/14, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Korver and A. Sellink. On automating process algebra proofs. In Proc. Symp. on Computer and Information Sciences, ISCIS XI, volume II, pages 815–826, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Lin. PAM: A process algebra manipulator. In Proc. Third Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, pages 136–146. LNCS 575, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Mauw and G. J. Veltink. A proof assistant for PSF. In Proc. Third Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, pages 158–168. LNCS 575, Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. F. Melham. A mechanized theory of the π-calculus in HOL. Technical Report 244, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Nesi. Value-passing CCS in HOL. In Proc. 6th Workshop on Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Applications, pages 352–365. LNCS 780, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Owre, J. Rushby, N. Shankar, and F. von Henke. Formal verification for fault-tolerant architectures: Prolegomena to the design of PVS. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(2):107–125, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. C. Paulson. Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover. LNCS 828, Springer-Verlag, 1994.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Twan Basten
    • 1
  • Jozef Hooman
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computing ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Computing Science InstituteUniversity of NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations