🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Thread View: comp.specification
1 messages
1 total messages Started by Todd Fine Tue, 07 May 1991 00:52
Divergences in CSP
#374
Author: Todd Fine
Date: Tue, 07 May 1991 00:52
31 lines
1725 bytes
I have a question about divergences in Hoare's CSP.

I think it is easy to show that the set:

   {s | for all t in A*, X in 2^A : (s^t,X) in failures (P)}

contains divergences(P).

My question is what reason is there not to define divergences(P) to be
{s | for all t in A*, X in 2^A : (s^t,X) in failures (P)}?

On page 130, nondeterministic processes are defined to be triples
(A,F,D) satisfying 7 conditions (C0-C6).  If the divergences were
defined in terms of the failures, then only a pair (A,F) would be
needed and three of the seven conditions (C4-C6) would be consequences
of the definition of D rather than axioms.  This would give a basic
model of pairs with 4 axioms rather than tuples with 7 axioms which would
seem to be an advantage.

The only advantage I can see to keeping D is that it is more general.
But, I cannot see any use for using a D other than the one I have
defined in terms of A and F.  If there really is no use making other
choices for D, then doesn't it make sense to use the simpler model?
If there are other meaningful choices for D, I would be interested
in knowing what they are.

Since there probably is little interest in this, it might be best to respond
through e-mail...

Todd Fine
fine@sctc.com
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads