Results 1 
7 of
7
Complete and ready simulation semantics are not finitely based over BCCSP, even . . .
, 2011
"... ..."
Axiomatizing Weak Ready Simulation Semantics over BCCSP
"... Ready simulation has proven to be one of the most significant semantics in process theory. It is at the heart of a number of general results that pave the way to a comprehensive understanding of the spectrum of process semantics. Since its original definition by Bloom, Istrail and Meyer in 1995, sev ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Ready simulation has proven to be one of the most significant semantics in process theory. It is at the heart of a number of general results that pave the way to a comprehensive understanding of the spectrum of process semantics. Since its original definition by Bloom, Istrail and Meyer in 1995, several authors have proposed generalizations of ready simulation to deal with internal actions. However, a thorough study of the (non)existence of finite (in)equational bases for weak ready simulation semantics is still missing in the literature. This paper presents a complete account of positive and negative results on the axiomatizability of weak ready simulation semantics over the language BCCSP. In addition, this study offers a thorough analysis of the axiomatizability properties of weak simulation semantics.
On finite bases for weak semantics: Failures versus Impossible futures. Full version of current paper. Available at http:// arxiv.org/abs/0810.4904.
, 2008
"... Abstract. We provide a finite basis for the (in)equational theory of the process algebra BCCS modulo the weak failures preorder and equivalence. We also give positive and negative results regarding the axiomatizability of BCCS modulo weak impossible futures semantics. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We provide a finite basis for the (in)equational theory of the process algebra BCCS modulo the weak failures preorder and equivalence. We also give positive and negative results regarding the axiomatizability of BCCS modulo weak impossible futures semantics.
Equational Characterization of CovariantContravariant Simulation and Conformance Simulation Semantics
"... Covariantcontravariant simulation and conformance simulation generalize plain simulation and try to capture the fact that it is not always the case that ”the larger the number of behaviors, the better”. We have previously studied their logical characterizations and in this paper we present the axio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Covariantcontravariant simulation and conformance simulation generalize plain simulation and try to capture the fact that it is not always the case that ”the larger the number of behaviors, the better”. We have previously studied their logical characterizations and in this paper we present the axiomatizations of the preorders defined by the new simulation relations and their induced equivalences. The interest of our results lies in the fact that the axiomatizations help us to know the new simulations better, understanding in particular the role of the contravariant characteristics and their interplay with the covariant ones; moreover, the axiomatizations provide us with a powerful tool to (algebraically) prove results of the corresponding semantics. But we also consider our results interesting from a metatheoretical point of view: the fact that the covariantcontravariant simulation equivalence is indeed ground axiomatizable when there is no action that exhibits both a covariant and a contravariant behaviour, but becomes nonaxiomatizable whenever we have together actions of that kind and either covariant or contravariant actions, offers us a new subtle example of the narrow border separating axiomatizable and nonaxiomatizable semantics. We expect that by studying these examples we will be able to develop a general theory separating axiomatizable and nonaxiomatizable semantics. 1 Introduction and some related work
ON THE AXIOMATIZABILITY OF IMPOSSIBLE FUTURES
, 2015
"... Abstract. A general method is established to derive a groundcomplete axiomatization for a weak semantics from such an axiomatization for its concrete counterpart, in the context of the process algebra BCCS. This transformation moreover preserves ωcompleteness. It is applicable to semantics at lea ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. A general method is established to derive a groundcomplete axiomatization for a weak semantics from such an axiomatization for its concrete counterpart, in the context of the process algebra BCCS. This transformation moreover preserves ωcompleteness. It is applicable to semantics at least as coarse as impossible futures semantics. As an application, groundand ωcomplete axiomatizations are derived for weak failures, completed trace and trace semantics. We then present a finite, sound, groundcomplete axiomatization for the concrete impossible futures preorder, which implies a finite, sound, groundcomplete axiomatization for the weak impossible futures preorder. In contrast, we prove that no finite, sound axiomatization for BCCS modulo concrete and weak impossible futures equivalence is groundcomplete. If the alphabet of actions is infinite, then the aforementioned groundcomplete axiomatizations are shown to be ωcomplete. If the alphabet is finite, we prove that the inequational theories of BCCS modulo the concrete and weak impossible futures preorder lack such a finite basis.
Axiomatizing Weak Simulation Semantics over BCCSP
"... This paper is devoted to the study of the (in)equational theory of the largest (pre)congruences over the language BCCSP induced from internal steps in process behaviours. In particular, the article focuses on the (pre)congruences associated with the weak simulation, the weak complete simulation and ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper is devoted to the study of the (in)equational theory of the largest (pre)congruences over the language BCCSP induced from internal steps in process behaviours. In particular, the article focuses on the (pre)congruences associated with the weak simulation, the weak complete simulation and the weak ready simulation preorders. For each of these behavioural semantics, results on the (non)existence of finite (ground)complete (in)equational axiomatizations are given. The axiomatization of those semantics using conditional equations is also discussed in some detail.
Creative Commons Attribution License. Equational Characterization of CovariantContravariant Simulation and Conformance Simulation Semantics
"... Covariantcontravariant simulation and conformance simulation generalize plain simulation and try to capture the fact that it is not always the case that “the larger the number of behaviors, the better”. We have previously studied their logical characterizations and in this paper we present the axio ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Covariantcontravariant simulation and conformance simulation generalize plain simulation and try to capture the fact that it is not always the case that “the larger the number of behaviors, the better”. We have previously studied their logical characterizations and in this paper we present the axiomatizations of the preorders defined by the new simulation relations and their induced equivalences. The interest of our results lies in the fact that the axiomatizations help us to know the new simulations better, understanding in particular the role of the contravariant characteristics and their interplay with the covariant ones; moreover, the axiomatizations provide us with a powerful tool to (algebraically) prove results of the corresponding semantics. But we also consider our results interesting from a metatheoretical point of view: the fact that the covariantcontravariant simulation equivalence is indeed ground axiomatizable when there is no action that exhibits both a covariant and a contravariant behaviour, but becomes nonaxiomatizable whenever we have together actions of that kind and either covariant or contravariant actions, offers us a new subtle example of the narrow border separating axiomatizable and nonaxiomatizable semantics. We expect that by studying these examples we will be able to develop a general theory separating axiomatizable and nonaxiomatizable semantics. 1 Introduction and some related work