A thesis for bounded concurrency

  • David Harel
Invited Lectures
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 379)


In recent work, we have investigated the power of bounded cooperative concurrency. The underlying notion involves enriching computational devices with a bounded number of concurrent components that communicate, synchronize, or otherwise cooperate. Comparisons involving succinctness and the time complexity of reasoning about programs have been undertaken. The results, which are extremely robust, show that in all the cases we have addressed bounded cooperative concurrency is of inherent exponential power, regardless of whether nondeterminism and/or pure, unbounded parallelism are also present. In this expository paper we motivate the research and survey the main results.


Regular Expression Finite Automaton Exponential Time Counter Sequence Propositional Dynamic Logic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [A]
    Abrahamson, K., “Decidability and Expressiveness of Logics of Processes”, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Report 80-08-01, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. [CKS]
    Chandra, A.K., D. Kozen, and L. J. Stockmeyer, “Alternation”, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 28 (1981), 114–133.Google Scholar
  3. [CG]
    Clark, K.L., and Gregory, S., “PARLOG: Parallel Programming in Logic”, ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. Syst. 8 (1986), 1–49.Google Scholar
  4. [DH]
    Drusinsky, D. and D. Harel, “On the Power of Bounded Concurrency I: The Finite Automata Level”, submitted, 1989 (Preliminary version appeared as “On the Power of Cooperative Concurrency”, in Proc. Concurrency '88, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 335, Springer-Verlag, Hamburg, FRG, pp. 74–103, 1988.)Google Scholar
  5. [EZ]
    Ehrenfeucht, A. and P. Zeiger, “Complexity Measures for Regular Expressions”, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 12 (1976), 134–146.Google Scholar
  6. [FL]
    Fischer, M. J. and R. E. Ladner, “Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs”, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18 (1979), 194–211.Google Scholar
  7. [H1]
    Harel, D., “Dynamic Logic”, In Handbook of Philosophical Logic Vol. II (D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds.), Reidel Publishing Co., pp. 497–604, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [H2]
    Harel, D., “Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems”, Science of Comput. Prog. 8, (1987), 231–274. (Also, CS84-05, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, February 1984, and in revised form, CS86-02, March 1986.)Google Scholar
  9. [HS]
    Harel, D. and R. Sherman, “Propositional Dynamic Logic of Flowcharts”, Inf. and Cont. 64 (1985), 119–135.Google Scholar
  10. [HH]
    Hirst, T. and D. Harel, “On the Power of Bounded Concurrency II: The Pushdown Automata Level”, submitted, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [Hi]
    Hirst, T., “Succinctness Results for Statecharts”, M.Sc. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 1989 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  12. [Ho]
    Hoare C.A.R., “Communicating Sequential Processes”, Comm. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 21, (1978), 666–677.Google Scholar
  13. [KT]
    Kozen, D. and J. Tiuryn, “Logics of Programs”, In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science (J. van Leeuwen, ed.), North Holand, Amsterdam, 1989, to appear.Google Scholar
  14. [MF]
    Meyer, A. R. and M. J. Fischer, “Economy of Description by Automata, Grammars, and Formal Systems”, Proc. 12th IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory, 1971, pp. 188–191.Google Scholar
  15. [M]
    Milner, R., A Calculus of Communicating Systems, Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci., Vol. 94, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. [P]
    Pratt, V. R., “Using Graphs to Understand PDL”, Workshop on Logics of Programs (D. Kozen, ed.), Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci., Vol 131, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981, pp. 387–396.Google Scholar
  17. [R]
    Reisig W., Petri Nets: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. [S]
    Safra, S., “On the Complexity of θ-automata”, Proc. 29th IEEE Symp. on Found. of Comput. Sci., 1988, pp. 319–327.Google Scholar
  19. [Sh]
    Shapiro, E., “Concurrent Prolog: A Progress Report”, IEEE Computer 19:8 (1986), 44–58.Google Scholar
  20. [VS]
    Vardi, M. and L. Stockmeyer, “Improved Upper and Lower Bounds for Modal Logics of Programs”, Proc. 17th ACM Symp. Theory of Comput., 1985, pp. 240–251.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Harel
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Applied Mathematics & Computer ScienceThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations