CONCUR 1991: CONCUR '91 pp 266-280

# Geometric logic, causality and event structures

• Jeremy Gunawardena
Selected Presentations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 527)

## Abstract

The conventional approach to causality is based on partial orders. Without additional structure, partial orders are only capable of expressing AND causality. In this paper we investigate a syntactic, or logical, approach to causality which allows other causal relationships, such as OR causality, to be expressed with equal facility. In earlier work, [3], we showed the benefits of this approach by giving a causal characterisation, in the finite case, of Milner's notion of confluence in CCS. This provides the justification for the more systematic study of causality, without finiteness restrictions, which appears here. We identify three general principles which a logic of causality should satisfy. These principles summarise some basic intuitions about events and causality. They lead us to geometric logic — the “logic of finite observations” — as a candidate for a logic of causality. We introduce the formalism of geometric automata based on this choice; a geometric automation is a set E together with a pair of endomorphisms of the free frame (locale) generated by E. Our main result is to show that Winskel's general event structures are a special case of geometric automata. This is analogous to the transition from topological data (sets of points) to algebraic structures (lattices of open subsets) in “pointless topology”, [6]. This result links our ideas on causality with Winskel's theory of events in computation; it provides a syntax for describing event structures and it opens the way to giving a causal interpretation of event structure phenomena. We show further that geometric automata give rise to domains of configurations which generalise the event domains of Winskel and Droste.

## References

1. [1]
S. Abramsky. Domain theory in logical form. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 1989.Google Scholar
2. [2]
M. Droste. Event structures and domains. Theoretical Computer Science, 68:37–47, 1989.Google Scholar
3. [3]
J. Gunawardena. Causal Automata I: Confluence ≡ {AN D, OR}-Causality. In M. Z. Kwiatkowska, M. W. Shields, and R. M. Thomas, editors, Semantics for Concurrency, pages 137–156. Springer Workshops in Computing, 1990. To appear in TCS.Google Scholar
4. [4]
J. Gunawardena. Eventless structures? (extended abstract). In Third Workshop on Concurrency and Compositionality, Goslar, March 1991.Google Scholar
5. [5]
P. T. Johnstone. Stone Spaces, volume 3 of Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
6. [6]
P. T. Johnstone. The point of pointless topology”. Bulletin American Mathematical Society, 8(1):41–53, 1983.Google Scholar
7. [7]
R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
8. [8]
M. Nielsen, G. Plotkin, and G. Winskel. Petri nets, event structures and domains. Theoretical Computer Science, 13:85–108, 1981.Google Scholar
9. [9]
M. Smyth. Powerdomains and predicate transformers: a topological view. In J. Diaz, editor, Automata, Languages and Programming. Springer LNCS 154, 1983.Google Scholar
10. [10]
P. S. Thiagarajan. Some behavioural aspects of net theory. In T. Lepistö and A. Salomaa, editors, Automata, Languages and Programming. Springer LNCS 317, 1988.Google Scholar
11. [11]
R. van Glabbeek and U. Goltz. Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions. Arbeitspapiere 366, GMD, February 1989.Google Scholar
12. [12]
S. Vickers. Topology via Logic, volume 5 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
13. [13]
G. Winskel. Events in Computation. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1980.Google Scholar
14. [14]
G. Winskel. Event structures. In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Advances in Petri Nets. Springer LNCS 255, 1987.Google Scholar