Advertisement

Towards an epistemic approach to reasoning about concurrent programs

  • W. van der Hoek
  • M. van Hulst
  • J. -J. Ch. Meyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 666)

Abstract

We show how epistemic logic may be used to reason about concurrent programs. Starting out from Halpern & Moses' interpretation of knowledge in the context of distributed systems, where they use the interleaving model, we extend this to a setting where also truly concurrent computations can be modelled, viz. posets of action labels. Moreover, and more importantly, we prepare grounds for the verification of concurrent programs. We focus on a variant of the well-known 1978-version of Hoare's Concurrent Sequential Processes (CSP) to see how the details work out for a concrete and simple language.

keywords

logics of knowledge semantics of concurrency verification of distributed programs Communicating Sequential Processes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AFdR80]
    K.R. Apt, N. Francez, and W.P.de Roever. A proof system for communicating sequential processes. ACM-TOPLAS, 2(3), 1980.Google Scholar
  2. [Ame89]
    P.H.M. America. Issues in the design of a parallel object-oriented language. Formal Aspects of Computing, 1(4), 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [Ben83]
    J.F.A.K. van Benthem. Modal Logic and Classical Logic. Bibliopolis, Naples, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. [BRR89]
    J.W. de Bakker, W.-P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors. Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency. Springer-Verlag, 1989. LNCS 354.Google Scholar
  5. [FH88]
    R.F. Fagin and J.Y. Halpern. Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 34:39–76, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [FHV88]
    R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern, and M.Y. Vardi. What can machines know? on the properties of knowledge in distributed systems. Research Report RJ 6250, IBM, 1988. to appear in JACM.Google Scholar
  7. [FLP84]
    N. Francez, D. Lehmann, and A. Pnueli. A linear-history semantics for languages for distributed programming. Theoretical Computer Science, 32:25–46, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [Gam91]
    L.T.F. Gamut. Logic, Language and Meaning, volume II, Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Univerity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [Hin62]
    J. Hintikka. Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1962.Google Scholar
  10. [HK90]
    Z. Huang and K. Kwast. Awareness, negation and logical omniscience. In J. van Eijck, editor, Logics in AI, number 478 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 282–301. Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [HM85]
    J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses. A guide to the modal logics of knowledge and belief. In Proceedings IJCAI-85, pages 480–490, Los Angeles, CA, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. [HM88]
    W. van der Hoek and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Possible logics for belief. Technical Report IR-170, Free University of Amsterdam, 1988. to appear in Logique et Analyse.Google Scholar
  13. [HM90]
    J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses. Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. Journal of the ACM, 37(3):549–587, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [HM91]
    M. van Hulst and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A taxonomy of knowledge in distribitud systems. Technical Report 91-23, Nijmegen University, The Netherlands, 1991. to appear in Proc of Comp Sc. in the Netherlands, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [HM92]
    W. van der Hoek and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Making some issues of implicit knowledge explicit. The International Jounal of Foundations of Computer Science, 3(2):193–223, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [Hoa78]
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. Communications of the ACM, 21(8):666–677, 1978.Google Scholar
  17. [Hoe90]
    W. van der Hoek. Systems for knowledge and beliefs. In J. van Eijck, editor, Logics in AI, number 478 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 267–281. Springer, 1990. extended version to appear in the Journal of Logic and Computation.Google Scholar
  18. [HZ87]
    J.Y. Halpern and L.D. Zuck. A little knowledge goes a long way: Simple knowledge-based derivations and correctness proofs for a family of protocols. In Proc. of 6th PODC, pages 269–280, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. [LMRT90]
    K. Lodaya, M. Mukund, R Ramanujam, and P. S. Thiagarajan. Models and logics for true concurrency. Technical Report TCS-90-3, SPIC Science Foundation, September 1990.Google Scholar
  20. [MdV89]
    J.-J.Ch. Meyer and E.P. de Vink. Pomset semantics for “true” concurrency with synchronization and recursion. In Proc. MFCS'89, number 379 in LNCS, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. [MHV91a]
    J.-J.Ch. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, and G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Epistemic logic for computer science: A tutorial. EATCS bulletin, 44:242–270, 1991. (part I).Google Scholar
  22. [MHV91b]
    J.-J.Ch. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, and G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Epistemic logic for computer science: A tutorial. EATCS bulletin, 45:256–287, 1991. (part II).Google Scholar
  23. [Zwi88]
    J. Zwiers. Compositionality, Concurrency and Partial Correctness. PhD thesis, Technical University Eindhoven, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. van der Hoek
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. van Hulst
    • 1
  • J. -J. Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NijmegenED NijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Free University of AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations