Contradiction-Tolerant Process Algebra with Propositional Signals

• Autorzy: Bergstra J. A. , Middelburg C. A.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3233/FI-2017-1530

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In a previous paper, an ACP-style process algebra was proposed in which propositions are used as the visible part of the state of processes and as state conditions under which processes may proceed. This process algebra, called ACPps, is built on classical propositional logic. In this paper, we present a version of ACPps built on a paraconsistent propositional logic which is essentially the same as CLuNs. There are many systems that would have to deal with selfcontradictory states if no special measures were taken. For a number of these systems, it is conceivable that accepting self-contradictory states and dealing with them in a way based on a paraconsistent logic is an alternative to taking special measures. The presented version of ACPps can be suited for the description and analysis of systems that deal with self-contradictory states in a way based on the above-mentioned paraconsistent logic.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

paraconsistent logic; process algebra; propositional condition; propositional signal

• Wydawca: IOS Press
• Czasopismo: Fundamenta Informaticae
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 153, nr 1/2
• Strony: 29--55
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 31 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Bergstra J. A.

• Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

autor

Middelburg C. A.

• Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Bibliografia

• [1] Baeten JCM, Weijland WP. Process Algebra, volume 18 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511624193.
• [2] Milner R. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1989.
• [3] Hoare CAR. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1985.
• [4] Baeten JCM, Bergstra JA. Process Algebra with Propositional Signals. Theoretical Computer Science, 1997. 177:381–405. doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(96)00253-8.
• [5] Greenfield P, Kuo D, Nepal S, Fekete A. Consistency for Web Services Applications. In: Böhm K, et al. (eds.), VLDB 2005, volume 31 of VLDB Conferences. VLDB Endowment, 2005 pp. 1199–1203. URL http://www.vldb2005.org/program/paper/thu/p1199-greenfield.pdf.
• [6] Py F, Ingrand F. Dependable Execution Control for Autonomous Robots. In: IROS 2004. IEEE, New York, 2004 pp. 1136–1141. doi:10.1109/IROS.2004.1389549.
• [7] Qu H, Veres SM. On Efficient Consistency Checks by Robots. In: ECC 2014. IEEE, New York, 2014 pp. 336–343. doi:10.1109/ECC.2014.6862528.
• [8] Middelburg CA. A Survey of Paraconsistent Logics. arXiv:1103.4324v1 [cs.LO], 2011.
• [9] D´Ottaviano IML. The Completeness and Compactness of a Three-Valued First-Order Logic. Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas, 1985. 19:77–94. URL https://eudml.org/doc/181748.
• [10] Batens D, de Clercq K. A Rich Paraconsistent Extension of Full Positive Logic. Logique et Analyse, 2004. 185–188:220–257. URL http://logica.ugent.be/~dirk/cluns_fin.pdf.
• [11] Carnielli WA, Coniglio ME, Marcos J. Logics of Formal Inconsistency. In: Gabbay D, Guenthner F (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 14, pp. 1–93. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6324-4_1.
• [12] Baeten JCM, Bergstra JA. Global Renaming Operators in Concrete Process Algebra. Information and Control, 1988. 78(3):205–245. doi:10.1016/0890-5401(88)90027-2.
• [13] Priest G. The Logic of Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1979. 8(1):219–241. doi:10.1007/BF00258428.
• [14] Avron A. Natural 3-Valued Logics—Characterization and Proof Theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1991. 56(1):276–294. doi:10.2307/2274919.
• [15] Arieli O, Avron A. Three-Valued Paraconsistent Propositional Logics. In: Beziau JY, Chakraborty M, Dutta S (eds.), New Directions in Paraconsistent Logic, volume 152 of Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2015 pp. 91–129. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2719-9_4.
• [16] Arieli O, Avron A, Zamansky A. Ideal Paraconsistent Logics. Studia Logica, 2011. 99(1–3):31–60. doi:10.1007/s11225-011-9346-y.
• [17] Arieli O, Avron A, Zamansky A. Maximal and Premaximal Paraconsistency in the Framework of Three-Valued Semantics. Studia Logica, 2011. 97(1):31–60. doi:10.1007/s11225-010-9296-9.
• [18] Avron A. On the Expressive Power of Three-Valued and Four-Valued Languages. The Journal of Logic and Computation, 1999. 9(6):977–994. doi:10.1093/logcom/9.6.977.
• [19] Blok WJ, Pigozzi D. Algebraizable Logics. Number 396 in Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1989. doi:10.1090/memo/0396.
• [20] Bergstra JA, Middelburg CA. Splitting Bisimulations and Retrospective Conditions. Information and Computation, 2006. 204(7):1083–1138. doi:10.1016/j.ic.2006.03.003.
• [21] Fokkink WJ, van Glabbeek RJ. Ntyft/ntyxt Rules Reduce to Ntree Rules. Information and Computation, 1996. 126:1–10. doi:10.1006/inco.1996.0030.
• [22] Bergstra JA, Middelburg CA. Preferential Choice and Coordination Conditions. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 2007. 70(2):172–200. doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2006.08.004.
• [23] Bergstra JA, Klop JW. Algebra of Communicating Processes with Abstraction. Theoretical Computer Science, 1985. 37:77–121. doi:10.1016/0304-3975(85)90088-X.
• [24] Verhoef C. A General Conservative Extension Theorem in Process Algebra. In: Olderog ER (ed.), PROCOMET’94. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994 pp. 149–168.
• [25] Fokkink WJ, Verhoef C. A Conservative Look at Operational Semantics with Variable Binding. Information and Computation, 1998. 146:24–54. doi:10.1006/inco.1998.2729.
• [26] Baeten JCM, Bergstra JA, Klop JW. On the Consistency of Koomen’s Fair Abstraction Rule. Theoretical Computer Science, 1987. 51(1–2):129–176. doi:10.1016/0304-3975(87)90052-1.
• [27] Hewitt C. ORGs for Scalable, Robust, Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing. IEEE Internet Computing, 2008. 12(5):96–99. doi:10.1109/MIC.2008.107.
• [28] Baeten JCM, Bergstra JA. Process Algebra with Signals and Conditions. In: Broy M (ed.), Programming and Mathematical Methods, volume F88 of NATO ASI Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992 pp. 273–323. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77572-7_13.
• [29] Bergstra JA, Middelburg CA. Process Algebra for Hybrid Systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 2005. 335(2–3):215–280. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2004.04.019.
• [30] Bergstra JA, Middelburg CA, Usenko YS. Discrete time Process Algebra and the Semantics of SDL. In: Bergstra JA, Ponse A, Smolka SA (eds.), Handbook of Process Algebra, pp. 1209–1268. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001. doi:10.1016/B978-044482830-9/50036-9.
• [31] Baeten JCM, Middelburg CA. Process Algebra with Timing. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, An EATCS Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-04995-2.