J.M.T. Romijn and F.W. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245-- 250, 1996.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....examples of sufficient conditions for receptiveness. Other examples are likely to be derived in the future based on new applications. Ordinary I O automata [LT87] are examples of receptive systems. That is, systems specified using weak fairness assumptions are receptive. Romijn and Vaandrager [RV96] provide an even stronger syntactic criterion for receptiveness in our model by introducing fair I O automata. A fair I O automaton is a safe I O automaton A equipped with sets wfair (A) and sfair(A) of subsets of local(A) called the weak fairness and strong fairness sets, respectively. The ....

....(A) and sfair(A) of subsets of local(A) called the weak fairness and strong fairness sets, respectively. The elements of wfair (A) are sets of actions over which weak fairness is enforced, while the elements of wfair(A) are sets of actions over which strong fairness is enforced. It is proven in [RV96] that a fair I O automaton A is receptive if each reachable state in A enables at most countably many sets in wfair(A) sfair(A) and each set of sfair(A) is input resistant, i.e. each set in sfair(A) is never disabled by the occurrence of an input action. In the timed case we have seen that the ....

J.M.T. Romijn and F. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245--250, 1996.

.... of (A; L) Similarly, the members of traces(L) are referred to as the live traces of (A; L) Note that every fair I O automaton induces a live I O automaton, if for every set in sfair(A) holds: once it is enabled, it can only be disabled by the occurrence of a locallycontrolled action [23]. Implementation Relations. Given two live I O automata (C ; LC ) and (A; LA ) with the same external actions, there is a safe trace inclusion, written as C S A, iff traces(C ) traces(A) and a live trace inclusion, written as (C ; LC ) L (A; LA ) iff traces(L C ) traces(L A ) Let C ....

J. Romijn and F. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245--250, 1996.

....examples of sufficient conditions for receptiveness. Other examples are likely to be derived in the future based on new applications. Ordinary I O automata [LT87] are examples of receptive systems. That is, systems specified using weak fairness assumptions are receptive. Romijn and Vaandrager [RV96] provide an even stronger syntactic criterion for receptiveness in our model by introducing fair I O automata. A fair I O automaton is a safe I O automaton A equipped with sets wfair (A) and sfair(A) of subsets of local(A) called the weak fairness and strong fairness sets, respectively. The ....

....(A) and sfair(A) of subsets of local(A) called the weak fairness and strong fairness sets, respectively. The elements of wfair (A) are sets of actions over which weak fairness is enforced, while the elements of wfair(A) are sets of actions over which strong fairness is enforced. It is proven in [RV96] that a fair I O automaton A is receptive if each reachable state in A enables at most countably many sets in wfair(A) sfair(A) and each set of sfair(A) is input resistant, i.e. each set in sfair(A) is never disabled by the occurrence of an input action. In the timed case we have seen that the ....

J.M.T. Romijn and F. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245--250, 1996.

....setting, with only the reasonable assumption that the number of threads in the system is always nite. We give constructions for both a weakly fair scheduler (a continuously enabled thread eventually runs) and a strongly fair scheduler (an in nitely often enabled thread eventually runs) See also [98], which considers fairness for I O Automata. 3 Compositional Proofs One reason for introducing objects into a system is to enable code reuse. To achieve code reuse, we need to know the properties of an object. Hence, we need a proof system. Furthermore, we would like to reuse proofs, as much as ....

Judi Romijn and Frits Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):24550, September 1996.

No context found.

J.M.T. Romijn and F.W. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245-- 250, 1996.

No context found.

J.M.T. Romijn and F.W. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245-- 250, 1996.

....I O Automata. Input Output automata are a semantic model for reactive, distributed systems together with a tailored refinement concept. The model has been originally proposed by Lynch and Tuttle [LT87] subsequent developments are mainly due to Lynch and Vaandrager [LV95, LV96, Lyn96, GSSL93, RV96, LSVW96] The method has already 1.1 Motivation 3 been successfully applied to the verification of several non trivial case studies, ranging from communication protocols [SLL93] and automated transit systems [DL97] to database applications [LMWF94] Apart from I O automata several further ....

....in the chapters 8 10. In the sequel a concise introduction to the theory of Input Output (I O) automata is given. The model has been originally developed by Lynch and Tuttle [LT87, LT89] subsequent extensions profited mainly from contributions by Lynch and Vaandrager [LV95, LV96, Lyn96, GSSL93, RV96] The presentation in this chapter follows [Lyn96] rather closely. In addition, strong fairness is considered as in [RV96] and backward simulations and the completeness result for simulations are taken from [LV95] Furthermore, general liveness is considered, which has been taken from [GSSL93] ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J. Romijn and F. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245--250, 1996.

....corresponds to checking the consistency of di erent sets of di erential equations. This is hard to check in general, and constitutes an important research topic within control theory. Receptiveness is a well known issue within the theory of concurrency where it has been thorougly investigated [14, 1, 40, 42]. Thus, Theorem 8.9 decomposes the compositionality problem of HIOAs into two problems that are best suited to be analyzed within control theory and concurrency theory, respectively. This decomposition result is an important feature of our hybrid model, as it allows one to analyze each problem ....

J.M.T. Romijn and F.W. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245-250, 1996.

....corresponds to checking the consistency of di#erent sets of di#erential equations. This is hard to check in general, and constitutes an important research topic within control theory. Receptiveness is a well known issue within the theory of concurrency where it has been thorougly investigated [14, 1, 40, 42]. Thus, Theorem 8.9 decomposes the compositionality problem of HIOAs into two problems that are best suited to be analyzed within control theory and concurrency theory, respectively. This decomposition result is an important feature of our hybrid model, as it allows one to analyze each problem ....

J.M.T. Romijn and F.W. Vaandrager. A note on fairness in I/O automata. Information Processing Letters, 59(5):245--250, 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC