On the faithfulness of formal models
The paper presents a critical examination of the way certain central aspects of concurrent programs are formally modeled. The main formal model examined is the operational model of fair transition system which represents concurrency by interleaving of actions considered atomic. Several questions concerning the faithfulness of this representation naturally arise. The paper considers some of these questions and, while presenting and analyzing some of the alternatives, attempts to justify the design decisions actually taken in the construction of the model.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- E. Dijkstra. Guarded commands, nondeterminancy, and formal derivation of programs. Comm. ACM, 18(8):453–457, 1975.Google Scholar
- E. Dijkstra. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1976.Google Scholar
- J. Fetzer. Program verification: The very idea. Comm. ACM, 31:420–422, 1988.Google Scholar
- D. Harel and A. Pnueli. On the development of reactive systems. In Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 477–498. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
- Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. How to cook a temporal proof system for your pet language. In Proc. 10th ACM Symp. Princ. of Prog. Lang., pages 141–154, 1983.Google Scholar
- Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The anchored version of the temporal framework. In J. de Bakker, W.-P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, pages 201–284. Lec. Notes in Comp. Sci. 354, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
- A. Pnueli. Applications of temporal logic to the specification and verification of reactive systems: A survey of current trends. In J. de Bakker, W.-P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Current Trends in Concurrency, pages 510–584. Lec. Notes in Comp. Sci. 224, Springer-Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar