D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. Technical Report ECS--LFCS--94--299, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, August 1994.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....languages) Definition 6.3 (Call by value let expressions) let x = e in e 0 ] a : b) e] b j b [x] e 0 ] a) We now hint how to prove that the direct encoding of let is equivalent to the indirect one. We let and denote the strong and weak congruence respectively (see [San93c] for definitions of and ) First, we expand out the definition of [ x:e 0 )e] x:e 0 )e] b) c) x:e 0 ] b j b [f ] e] c j c [x] f [x; a] b) c) f) b [f ] j f [x; b] e 0 ] b) j b [f ] e] c j c [x] f [x; a] We can then execute the communication ....

Davide Sangiorgi. A theory of bisimulation for the -calculus. Technical Report ECS--LFCS--93--270, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, 1993.

....used to show the soundness of the axiomatization. But observational equivalence is based on the semantics that is again based on the axioms, rules and side conditions; trying to use this to argue for the choice of axioms, rules and side conditions then becomes a circular argument Interestingly [27] departs from [16] in only incorporating structural laws corresponding to ff renaming (i.e. renaming bound variables) Then several equivalences are studied and most of the structural laws of [16] are proved to be sound. Once this result has been established one can revert to the use of the ....

....structural laws corresponding to ff renaming (i.e. renaming bound variables) Then several equivalences are studied and most of the structural laws of [16] are proved to be sound. Once this result has been established one can revert to the use of the structural rule. The development of [27] therefore supports our belief that it may be dangerous to follow [16] in defining semantics by first stating a non trivial structural equivalence . Rather one should define a more traditional operational semantics and then use simulation to validate the axioms and rules; this is what [27] does ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. Sangiorgi: A Theory of Bisimulation for the -Calculus. Report ECS--LFCS-- 93--270, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, 1993.

....semantic equivalences between systems. In this paper we describe the MWB (Mobility Workbench) a tool for manipulating and analyzing mobile concurrent systems described in the calculus. In the current version, the basic functionality is to decide the open bisimulation equivalences of Sangiorgi [San93], for agents in the monadic calculus with the original positive match operator. This is decidable for calculus agents with finite control analogous to CCS finite state agents which do not admit parallel composition within recursively defined agents. There are various other analysis ....

.... calculus In this section we give a brief presentation of the syntax and semantics of the calculus, as well as a description of the open bisimulation equivalences and efficient characterisations for these which will be used in the implementation. For fuller treatments of these topics we refer to [MPW92, San93]. There are two entities in the calculus: names (ranged over by x,y,z,w,v,u) and processes (ranged over by P ,Q,R) The syntax of the calculus is given by the following BNF equation P : 0 nil j A(x 1 ; x k ) identifier j ff:P action prefix j [x = y]P matching j P 1 P 2 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Davide Sangiorgi. A theory of bisimulation for the -calculus. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-93-270, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Dept of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, UK, June 1993.

....up to . # and restriction, then S # . #. A fortiori, if S is a barbed bisimulation up to . #, then S # . #. Proof We prove the proposition using a generalization of the standard technique [MPW92] an alternative would be to use the modular framework recently developed by Sangiorgi [San94]. 98 We construct a relation S # larger than S and show that S # is a barbed bisimulation. The relation S # is defined by: S 0 = S S k 1 = #m)P, #m)Q) P . #S k . # Q, m is any name S # = k # ( #S k . #) First we observe that S # has the following ....

D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. Technical Report ECS--LFCS--94--299, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, August 1994.

.... and restriction, then S Delta . A fortiori, if S is a barbed bisimulation up to Delta , then S Delta . Proof We prove the proposition using a generalisation of the standard technique [MPW92] an alternative would be to use the modular framework recently developed by Sangiorgi [San94]. We construct a relation S larger than S and show that S is a barbed bisimulation. The relation S is defined by: S 0 = S S k 1 = f( m)P; m)Q) j P Delta S k Delta Q; m is any nameg S = k ( Delta S k Delta ) First we observe that S enjoys the following ....

D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. Technical Report ECS--LFCS--94--299, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, August 1994.

No context found.

D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. Technical Report ECS--LFCS--94--299, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, August 1994.

No context found.

D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. Technical Report ECS--LFCS--94--299, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, August 1994. 114

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