Document Sample

Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing Least and greatest ﬁxed points of a while semantics function Fairouz Tchier Mathematics department, King Saud University P.O.Box 22452 Riyadh 11495, Saudi Arabia ftchier@hotmail.com May 1, 2009 Abstract 1 Relation Algebras Both homogeneous and heterogeneous relation alge- bras are employed in computer science. In this pa- The meaning of a program is given by specifying the per, we use heterogeneous relation algebras whose function (from input to output) that corresponds to deﬁnition is taken from [8, 27, 28]. the program. The denotational semantic deﬁnition, thus maps syntactical things into functions. A re- (1) Deﬁnition. A relation algebra A is a structure lational semantics is a mapping of programs to re- (B, ∨, ∧, −, ◦, ) over a non-empty set B of elements, lations. We consider that the input-output seman- called relations. The unary operations −, are total tics of a program is given by a relation on its set of whereas the binary operations ∨, ∧, ◦ are partial. We states. In a nondeterministic context, this relation is denote by B∨R the set of those elements Q ∈ B for calculated by considering the worst behavior of the which the union R ∨ Q is deﬁned and we require that program (demonic relational semantics). In this pa- R ∈ B∨R for every R ∈ B. If Q ∈ B∨R , we say that per, we concentrate on while loops. We will present Q has the same type as R. The following conditions some interesting results about the ﬁxed points of the are satisﬁed. while semantics function; f (X) = Q ∨ P 2 X where P < ∧ Q< = Ø, by taking P := t 2 B and Q := t∼ , (a) (B∨R , ∨, ∧, −) is a Boolean algebra, with zero one gets the demonic semantics we have assigned to element 0R and universal element 1R . The while loops in previous papers. We will show that elements of B∨R are ordered by inclusion, de- the least angelic ﬁxed point is equal to the greatest noted by ≤. demonic ﬁxed point of the semantics function. (b) If the products P ◦ R and Q ◦ R are deﬁned, so is P ◦ Q . If the products P ◦ Q and P ◦ R are deﬁned, so is Q ◦ R. If Q ◦ R exists, so does Q ◦ P for every P ∈ B∨R . Keywords: Angelic ﬁxed points, demonic ﬁxed points, demonic functions, while (c) Composition is associative: P ◦ (Q ◦ R) = loops, relational demonic semantics. (P ◦ Q) ◦ R. 1 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 571 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing (d) There are elements R id and idR associated a vector [28] iﬀ x = x ◦ 1. The second way is via to every relation R ∈ B. R id behaves as a monotypes [2]: a relation a is a monotype iﬀ a ≤ id. right identity and idR as a left identity for The set of monotypes {a | a ∈ B∨R }, for a given R, B∨R . is a complete Boolean lattice. We denote by a∼ the monotype complement of a. (e) The Schr¨der rule P ◦Q ≤ R ⇔ P ◦−R ≤ o The domain and codomain of a relation R can be −Q ⇔ −R ◦ Q ≤ −P holds whenever one characterized by the vectors R ◦ 1 and R ◦ 1, re- of the three expressions is deﬁned. spectively [15, 28]. They can also be characterized (f) 1 ◦ R ◦ 1 = 1 iﬀ R = 0 (Tarski rule). by the corresponding monotypes. In this paper, we take the last approach. In what follows we formally If R ∈ B∨R , then R is said to be homogeneous. If deﬁne these operators and give some of their prop- all R ∈ A have the same type, the operations are all erties. total and A itself is said to be homogeneous. (3) Deﬁnition. The domain and codomain opera- For simplicity, the universal, zero, and identity ele- tors of a relation R, denoted respectively by R< and ments are all denoted by 1, 0, id, respectively. An- R> , are the monotypes deﬁned by the equations other operation that occurs in this article is the re- (a) R< = id ∧ R ◦ 1, ﬂexive transitive closure R∗ . It satisﬁes the well- known laws (b) R> = id ∧ 1 ◦ R. R∗ = Ri and R∗ = id ∨ R ◦ R∗ = id ∨ R∗ ◦ R, These operators can also be characterized by Galois i≥0 connections(see [2, 2]). For each relation R and each monotype a, where R0 = id and Ri+1 = R ◦ Ri . From Deﬁnition 1, the usual rules of the calculus of relations can be R< ≤ a ⇔ R ≤ a ◦ 1, derived (see, e.g., [8, 10, 28]). R> ≤ a ⇔ R ≤ 1 ◦ a. The notion of Galois connections is very important in what follows, there are many deﬁnitions of Galois The domain and codomain operators are linked by connections [?]. We choose the following the equation R> = R < , as is easily checked. one [2]. (4) Deﬁnition. Let R be a relation and a be a (2) Deﬁnition. Let (S, ≤S ) and (S , ≤S ) be two monotype. The monotype right residual and mono- preordered sets. A pair (f, g) of functions, where f : type left residual of a by R (called factors in [5]) are S → S and g : S → S, forms a Galois connections deﬁned respectively by iﬀ the following formula holds for all x ∈ S and y ∈ (a) a/R := ((1 ◦ a)/R)> , • S. f (x) ≤S y ⇔ x ≤S g(y). (b) R\a := (R\(a 2 1))< . • The function f is called the lower adjoint and g An alternative characterization of residuals can the upper adjoint. also be given by means of a Galois connection as follows [1]: 2 Monotypes and Related Op- b ≤ a/R ⇔ (b 2 R)> ≤ a, • b ≤ R\a ⇔ (R ◦ b)< ≤ a. • erators We have to use exhaustively the complement of In the calculus of relations, there are two ways for the domain of a relation R, i.e the monotype a such viewing sets as relations; each of them has its own that a = R< ∼ . To avoid the notation R< ∼ , we adopt advantages. The ﬁrst is via vectors: a relation x is the Notation 2 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 572 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing R := R< ∼ . of R . Then, I(R) is a monotype. In a concrete Because we assume our relation algebra to be com- setting, I(R) is the set of monotypes which are not plete, least and greatest ﬁxed points of monotonic the origins of inﬁnite paths (by R): functions exist. We cite [12] as a general reference A relation R is progressively ﬁnite iﬀ for a mono- on ﬁxed points. type a, a ≤ (R ◦ a)< ⇒ a = 0 equivalently Let f be a monotonic function. The fol- ν(a : a ≤ id : (R ◦ a)< ) = 0 equivalently µ(a : a ≤ lowing properties of ﬁxed points are used below: id : a/R) = id. • (a) µf = {X|f (X) = X} = {X|f (X) ≤ X}, The next theorem involves the function wa (X) := (b) νf = {X|f (X) = X} = {X|X ≤ f (X)}, Q ∨ P ◦ X, which is closely related to the description (c) µf ≤ νf, of iterations. The theorem highlights the importance (d) f (Y ) ≤ Y ⇒ µf ≤ Y, of progressive ﬁniteness in the simpliﬁcation of ﬁxed (e) Y ≤ f (Y ) ⇒ Y ≤ νf. point-related properties. In what follows, we describe notions that are useful for the description of the set of initial states of a (6) Theorem. Let f (X) := Q ∨ P ◦ X be a func- program for which termination is guaranteed. These tion. If P is progressively ﬁnite, the function f has a notions are progressive ﬁniteness and the initial part unique ﬁxed point which means that ν(f ) = µ(f ) = of a relation. P ∗ ◦ Q [1]: A relation R is progressively ﬁnite in terms of As the demonic calculus will serve as an algebraic points iﬀ there are no inﬁnite chains s0 , ..., si such apparatus for deﬁning the denotational semantics that si Rsi+1 ∀i, i ≥ 0. I.e there is no points set y of the nondeterministic programs, we will deﬁne in which are the starting points of some path of inﬁnite what follows these operators. length. For every point set y, y ≤ R ◦ y ⇒ y = 0. The least set of points which are the starting points of paths of ﬁnite length i.e from which we can pro- 3 Demonic reﬁnement order- ceed only ﬁnitely many steps is called initial part of R denoted by I(R). This topic is of interest in ing many areas of computer science, mathematics and is We now deﬁne the reﬁnement ordering (demonic in- related to recursion and induction principle. clusion) we will be using in the sequel. This ordering (5) Deﬁnition. induces a complete join semilattice, called a demonic semilattice. The associated operations are demonic (a) The initial part of a relation R, denoted join ( ), demonic meet ( ) and demonic composition I(R), is given by ( 2 ). We give the deﬁnitions and needed properties I(R) = {a | a ≤ id : a/R = a} = {a | • of these operations, and illustrate them with simple a ≤ id : a/R ≤ a} = µ(a : a ≤ id : a/R), • • examples. For more details on relational demonic where a is a monotype. semantics and demonic operators, see [5, 8, 6, 7, 14]. (b) A relation R is said to be progressively ﬁnite (7) Deﬁnition. We say that a relation Q reﬁnes a [28] iﬀ I(R) = id. relation R [23], denoted by Q R, iﬀ R< ◦ Q ≤ R and R ≤ Q . < < The description of I(R) by the formulation a/R = a • shows that I(R) exists, since (a | a ≤ id : a/R) is• (8) Proposition. Let Q and R be relations, then monotonic in the ﬁrst argument and because the set of monotypes is a complete lattice, it follows from the (a) The greatest lower (wrt ) of Q and R is, ﬁxed point theorem of Knaster and Tarski that this Q R = Q< ◦ R< ◦ (Q ∨ R), function has a least ﬁxed point. Progressive ﬁnite- If Q< = R< then we have and ∨ coincide ness of a relation R is the same as well-foundedness i.e Q R = Q ∨ R. 3 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 573 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing (b) If Q and R satisfy the condition Q< ∧ R< = (a) S(R) = I(P ) ◦ [(P ∨ Q)< /P ∗ ] ◦ P ∗ ◦ Q., with • (Q ∧ R)< , their least upper bound is Q R = the restriction Q ∧ R ∨ Q ◦ R ∨ R ◦ Q, otherwise, the least upper bound does not exist. If Q< ∧ R< = 0 (b) P < ∧ Q< = 0 then we have and ∧ coincide i.e Q R = Our goal is to show that the operational semantics Q ∧ R. a is equal to the denotational one which is given as For the proofs see [9, 14]. the greatest ﬁxed point of the semantic function Q ∨ P 2 X in the demonic semilattice. In other words, (9) Deﬁnition. The demonic composition of rela- we have to prove the next equation: tions Q and R [5] is Q 2 R = (R< /Q) ◦ Q ◦ R. • (a) S(R) = {X|X Q∨P 2 X}; In what follows we present some properties of 2 . (10) Theorem. by taking P := t 2 B and Q := t∼ , one gets the demonic semantics we have assigned to while loops (a) (P 2 Q) 2 R = P 2 (Q 2 R), in previous papers [14, 35]. Other similar deﬁnitions of while loops can be found in [19, 25, 29]. (b) R total ⇒ Q 2 R = Q ◦ R, Let us introduce the following abbreviations: (c) Q function ⇒ Q 2 R = Q ◦ R. (12) Abbreviation. Let P , Q and X be relations See [5, 6, 7, 14, 35]. subject to the restriction P < ∧ Q< = 0 (b) and x Monotypes have very simple and convenient prop- a monotype. The Abbreviations wd , wa , w< , a and l erties. Some of them are presented in the following are deﬁned as follows: proposition. wd (X) := Q ∨ P 2 X, a := (P ∨ Q)< /P ∗ , • (11) Proposition. Let a and b be monotypes. We wa (X) := Q ∨ P ◦ X, have l := I(P ). (a) a = a = a2 , w< (x) := Q< ∨ (P 2 x)< = Q ∨ (P 2 x)< (b) a 2 b = a ∧ b = b 2 a, (Mnemonics: the subscripts a and d stand for angelic and demonic, respectively; the subscript < refers to (c) a ∨ a∼ = id and a ∧ a∼ = 0, the fact that w< is obtained from wd by composi- tion with <; the monotype a stands for abnormal, (d) a ≤ b ⇔ b∼ ≤ a∼ , since it represents states from which abnormal ter- (e) a∼ 2 b∼ = (a ∨ b)∼ , mination is not possible; ﬁnally, l stands for loop, since it represents states from which no inﬁnite loop (f ) (a ∧ b)∼ = (a 2 b)∼ = a∼ ∨ b∼ , is possible.) (g) a 2 b∼ ∨ b = a ∨ b, In what follows we will be concerned about the ﬁxed point of wa , w< and wd . (h) a ≤ b ⇔ a 2 1 ≤ b 2 1. (13) Theorem. Every ﬁxed point Y of wa (Abbre- In previous papers [14, 13, 31, 35], we found the viation 12) veriﬁes P ∗ ◦ Q ≤ Y ≤ P ∗ ◦ Q ∨ l∼ 2 1, semantics of the while loop given by the following and the bounds are tight (i.e. the extremal values are P ﬁxed points). graph: - e - s - The next lemma investigates the relationship be- Q tween ﬁxed points of w< and those of wd (cf. Abbre- viation 12). 4 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 574 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing (14) Lemma. Let h(X) := (P ∨ Q) ∨ (P ◦ X)< and 4 Application h1 (x) := (P ∨ Q) 2 1 ∨ P ◦ x. In [6, 7], Berghammer and Schmidt propose abstract (a) Y = wd (Y ) ⇒ w< (Y < ) = Y < , relation algebra as a practical means for the speciﬁ- (b) w< (Y < ) = Y < ⇒ h(Y ) = Y , cation of data types and programs. Often, in these speciﬁcations, a relation is characterized as a ﬁxed (c) h(Y ) = Y ⇒ h1 (Y 2 1) = Y 2 1, point of some function. Can demonic operators be used in the deﬁnition of such a function? Let us now (15) Lemma. Let Y be a ﬁxed point of wd and b be show with a simple example that the concepts pre- a ﬁxed point of w< (Abbreviation 12). The relation sented in this paper give useful insights for answering b 2 Y is a ﬁxed point of wd . this question. (16) Lemma. If Y and Y are two ﬁxed points of In [6, 7], it is shown that the natural numbers can wd (Abbreviation 12) such that Y < = Y < and Y < ◦P be characterized by the relations z and S (zero and is progressively ﬁnite, then Y = Y . successeur ) the laws The next theorem characterizes the domain of the (a) Ø = z = zL ∧ zz ⊆ I (z is a point), greatest ﬁxed point, wrt , of function wd . This SS = I ∧ S S ⊆ domain is the set of points for which normal ter- I (S is a one to one application.), mination is guaranteed (no possibility of abnormal Sz = Ø (z has a predecessor), termination or inﬁnite loop). L = {x|z ∪ S x = x} (generation principle). (17) Theorem. Let W be the greatest ﬁxed point, wrt to , of wd (Abbreviation 12). We have W < = For the rest of this section, assume that we are a 2 l. given a relation algebra satisfying these laws. In this algebra, because of the last axiom, the inequation The following theorem is a generalization to a non- deterministic context of the while statement veriﬁ- (a) z ∪ S X ⊆ X cation rule of Mills [24]. It shows that the greatest ﬁxed point W of wd is uniquely characterized by con- obviously has a unique solution for X, namely, X = ditions (a) and (b), that is, by the fact that W is a L. Because the functiong(X) := z ∪ S X is ∪- ﬁxed point of wd and by the fact that no inﬁnite loop continuous, this solution can be expressed as is possible when the execution is started in a state that belongs to the domain of W . Note that we also (a) L = n≥0 g n (Ø) = n≥0 S n z, have W < ≤ a (see Theorem 17), but this condition where g 0 (Ø) = Ø, g n+1 (Ø) = g(g n (Ø)), S 0 = I is implicitly enforced by condition (a). Half of this and S n+1 = S S n . However, it is shown in [6, 7] theorem (the ⇐ direction) is also proved by Sekerin- that z S 2 X ⊆ X, obtained by replacing the ski (the main iteration theorem [29]) in a predicative join and composition operators in a by their demonic programming set-up. counterparts, has inﬁnitely many solutions. Indeed, (18) Theorem. A relation W is the greatest ﬁxed o from Sz = Ø and the Schr¨der rule, it follows that point, wrt , of function wd (Abbreviation 12), iﬀ the following two conditions hold: (a) z ∩ S L = Ø, (a) W = wd (W ), so that, by deﬁnition of demonic join (8(a)) (b) W < ≤ l. and demonic composition (9), z S 2 X = (z ∪ S 2 X) ∩ z ∩ (S 2 X)L ⊆ z ∩ S L = Ø. Hence, In what follows we give some applications of our any relation R is a solution to z S 2 X ⊆ X. results. Looking at previous papers [14, 32, 33, 34, 31], one 5 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 575 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing immediately sees why it is impossible to reach L by how the universal relationL arises as the greatest joining anything to z (which is a point and hence is lower bound n≥0 S n 2 z of this set of points. Note an immediate predecessor of Ø), since this can only that, whereas there is a unique solution to a, there lead to z or to Ø. are inﬁnitely many solutions to 4 (equivalently, to a), Let us now go ‘fully demonic’ and ask what is a for example n≥k S n (= n≥k S n ), for any k. solution to z S 2 X X. By the discussion above, For the upward approach, consider this is equivalent to Ø X, which has a unique solution, X = Ø. This raises the question whether z X 2S X. it is possible to ﬁnd some fully demonic inequation Here also there are inﬁnitely many solutions to this similar to (a), whose solution is X = L. Because L is inequation; in particular, any vector v, including in the middle of the demonic semilattice, there are in Ø and L, is a solution to 4. Because (BL , ) is fact two possibilities: either approach L from above only a join semilattice, it is not at all obvious that or from below. the least ﬁxed point of h(X) := z X 2 S ex- For the approach from above, consider the inequa- ists. It does, however, since the following deriva- tion tion shows that n≥0 z 2 S n (= n n≥0 h (z ), 0 X z S 2 X. where h (z ) = z ) is a ﬁxed point of h and hence is obviously the least solution of 4: Because z Using Theorem 10(c), we have z S 2X = and S are mappings, property 10(c) implies that z S X, since S is deterministic (axiom a(b)). z 2 S n = z S n , for any n ≥ 0. But z S n is From a, z ⊆ S L; this implies z ⊆ S XL and also a mapping (it is the inverse of the point S n z) S X ⊆ z, so that, by deﬁnition of , and hence is total, from which, by Proposition 8(a) z S X = z ∩ S X ∪ z ∩ S XL ∪ z ∩ S X = and equation a, n≥0 z 2 S n = n≥0 z S n = n n z ∪ S X. n≥0 z S = ( n≥0 S z)˘ = L = L. This This means that 4 reduces to means that L is the least upper bound of the set of mappings {z 2 S n |n ≥ 0}. Again, a look at (a) X z ∪ S X. [31] gives some intuition to understand this result, after recalling that mappings are minimal elements By deﬁnition of reﬁnement (7), this implies that in (BL , ) (though not all mappings have the form z ∪ S XL ⊆ XL; this is a variant of (a), thus z 2 S n ). having XL = L as only solution. This means that Thus, building L from below using the set of map- any solution to 4 must be a total relation. But L pings {z 2 S n |n ≥ 0} is symmetric to building it is total and in fact is the largest (by ) total rela- from above using the set of points {S n 2 z|n ≥ 0}. tion. It is also a solution to 4 (since by axiom a(d), z ∪ S L = L) so that L = {X|X z S 2 X}; that is, L is the greatest ﬁxed point in (BL , ) of n2 5 Conclusion f (X) := z S 2 X. Now consider n≥0 S z, n where S is a n-fold demonic composition deﬁned We presented a theorem that can be also used to ﬁnd by S 0 = I and S n+1 = S 2 S n . By axiom the ﬁxed points of functions of the form f (X) := a(b), S is deterministic, so that, by 10(c) and asso- Q ∨ P 2 X (no restriction on the domains of P and ciativity of demonic composition, conS n 2 z = S n z. Q). This theorem can be applied also to the program Hence, veriﬁcation and construction (as in the precedent ex- It is easy to show that for any n ≥ 0, S n z is ample). Half of this theorem (the ⇐ direction) is a point (it is the n-th successor of zero) and that also proved by Sekerinski (the main iteration theo- m = n ⇒ S m z = S n z. Hence, in (BL , ), rem [29]) in a predicative programming set-up. Our {S n z|n ≥ 0} (i.e. {S n 2 z|n ≥ 0}) is the set of theorem is more general because there is no restric- immediate predecessors of Ø; looking at [31] shows tion on the domains of the relations P and Q. 6 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 576 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing The approach to demonic input-output relation [6] Berghammer, R.: Relational Speciﬁcation of presented here is not the only possible one. In Data Types and Programs. Technical report [19, 20, 21], the inﬁnite looping has been treated by a u a 9109, Fakult¨t f¨r Informatik, Universit¨t der adding to the state space a ﬁctitious state ⊥ to de- u Bundeswehr M¨nchen, Germany, Sept. 1991. note nontermination. In [8, 18, 22, 26], the demonic input-output relation is given as a pair (relation,set). [7] Berghammer, R. and Schmidt, G.: Relational The relation describes the input-output behavior of Speciﬁcations. In C. Rauszer, editor, Algebraic the program, whereas the set component represents Logic, 28 of Banach Center Publications. Polish the domain of guaranteed termination. Academy of Sciences, 1993. We note that the preponderant formalism em- ployed until now for the description of demonic [8] Berghammer, R. and Zierer, H.: Relational Al- input-output relation is the wp-calculus. For more gebraic Semantics of Deterministic and Nonde- details see [3, 4, 17]. terministic Programs. Theoretical Comput. Sci., 43, 123–147 (1986). References [9] Boudriga, N., Elloumi, F. and Mili, A.: On the Lattice of Speciﬁcations: Applications to a [1] Backhouse, R. C., and Doombos, H.: Math- Speciﬁcation Methodology. Formal Aspects of ematical Induction Made Calculational. Com- Computing, 4, 544–571 (1992). puting science note 94/16, Department of Math- ematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven Uni- [10] Chin, L. H. and Tarski, A.: Distributive and versity of Technology, The Netherlands, 1994. Modular Laws in the Arithmetic of Relation Al- gebras. University of California Publications, 1, [2] Backhouse, R. C., Hoogendijk, P., Voermans, 341–384 (1951). E. and van der Woude, J.:. A Relational The- ory of Datatypes. Research report, Department [11] Conway, J. H.: Regular Algebra and Finite Ma- of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eind- chines. Chapman and Hall, London, 1971. hoven University of Technology, The Nether- lands, 1992. [12] Davey, B. A. and Priestley, H. A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge Mathematical [3] R. J. R. Back. : On the correctness of reﬁnement Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, Cam- in program development. Thesis, Department of bridge, 1990. Computer Science, University of Helsinki, 1978. o [13] J. Desharnais, B. M¨ller, and F. Tchier. Kleene [4] R. J. R. Back and J. von Wright.: Combining under a demonic star. 8th International Con- angels, demons and miracles in program spec- ference on Algebraic Methodology And Software iﬁcations. Theoretical Computer Science,100, Technology (AMAST 2000), May 2000, Iowa 1992, 365–383. City, Iowa, USA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1816, pages 355–370, Springer- [5] Backhouse, R. C. and van der Woude, J.: De- Verlag, 2000. monic Operators and Monotype Factors. Math- ematical Structures in Comput. Sci., 3(4), 417– [14] Desharnais, J., Belkhiter, N., Ben Mo- 433, Dec. (1993). Also: Computing Science Note hamed Sghaier, S., Tchier, F., Jaoua, A., Mili, 92/11, Department of Mathematics and Com- A. and Zaguia, N.: Embedding a Demonic Semi- puter Science, Eindhoven University of Technol- lattice in a Relation Algebra. Theoretical Com- ogy, The Netherlands, 1992. puter Science, 149(2):333–360, 1995. 7 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 577 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing [15] Desharnais, J., Jaoua, A., Mili, F., Boudriga, o [28] Schmidt, G. and Str¨hlein, T.: Relations and N. and Mili, A.: A Relational Division Oper- Graphs. EATCS Monographs in Computer Sci- ator: The Conjugate Kernel. Theoretical Com- ence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993. put. Sci., 114, 247–272 (1993). [29] Sekerinski, E.: A Calculus for Predicative Pro- [16] Dilworth, R. P.: Non-commutative Residuated gramming. In R. S. Bird, C. C. Morgan, and Lattices. Trans. Amer. Math. Sci., 46, 426–444 J. C. P. Woodcock, editors, Second Interna- (1939). tional Conference on the Mathematics of Pro- gram Construction, volume 669 of Lecture Notes [17] E. W. Dijkstra. : A Discipline of Programming. in Comput. Sci. Springer-Verlag, 1993. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliﬀs, N.J., 1976. [18] H. Doornbos. : A relational model of programs [30] Tarski, A.: On the calculus of relations. J. without the restriction to Egli-Milner monotone Symb. Log. 6, 3, 1941, 73–89. constructs. IFIP Transactions, A-56:363–382. [31] F. Tchier.: e S´mantiques relationnelles North-Holland, 1994. e e d´moniaques et v´riﬁcation de boucles non [19] C. A. R. Hoare and J. He. : The weakest e e d´terministes. Theses of doctorat, D´partement prespeciﬁcation. Fundamenta Informaticae IX, e e de Math´matiques et de statistique, Universit´ 1986, Part I: 51–84, 1986. Laval, Canada, 1996. [20] C. A. R. Hoare and J. He. : The weakest [32] F. Tchier.: Demonic semantics by mono- prespeciﬁcation. Fundamenta Informaticae IX, types. International Arab conference on In- 1986, Part II: 217–252, 1986. formation Technology (Acit2002),University of Qatar, Qatar, 16-19 December 2002. [21] C. A. R. Hoare and al. : Laws of programming. Communications of the ACM, 30:672–686, 1986. [33] F. Tchier.: Demonic relational semantics of compound diagrams. In: Jules Desharnais, [22] R. D. Maddux. : Relation-algebraic semantics. Marc Frappier and Wendy MacCaull, editors. Theoretical Computer Science, 160:1–85, 1996. Relational Methods in computer Science: The [23] Mili, A., Desharnais, J. and Mili, F.: Relational e Qu´bec seminar, pages 117-140, Methods Pub- Heuristics for the Design of Deterministic Pro- lishers 2002. grams. Acta Inf., 24(3), 239–276 (1987). [34] F. Tchier.: While loop d demonic relational [24] Mills, H. D., Basili, V. R., Gannon, J. D. and semantics monotype/residual style. 2003 In- Hamlet,R. G.: Principles of Computer Pro- ternational Conference on Software Engineer- gramming. A Mathematical Approach. Allyn ing Research and Practice (SERP03), Las Ve- and Bacon, Inc., 1987. gas, Nevada, USA, 23-26, June 2003. [25] Nguyen, T. T.: A Relational Model of Demonic [35] F. Tchier.: Demonic Semantics: using mono- Nondeterministic Programs. Int. J. Founda- types and residuals. IJMMS 2004:3 (2004) 135- tions Comput. Sci., 2(2), 101–131 (1991). 160. (International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences) [26] D. L. Parnas. A Generalized Control Structure and its Formal Deﬁnition. Communications of [36] M. Walicki and S. Medal.: Algebraic approches the ACM, 26:572–581, 1983 to nondeterminism: An overview. ACM compu- tong Surveys,29(1), 1997, 30-81. [27] Schmidt, G.: Programs as Partial Graphs I: Flow Equivalence and Correctness. Theoretical [37] L.Xu, M. Takeichi and H. Iwasaki.: Rela- Comput. Sci., 15, 1–25 (1981). tional semantics for locally nondeterministic 8 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 578 Special Issue on ICIT 2009 Conference - Applied Computing programs. New Generation Computing 15, 1997, 339-362. 9 UbiCC Journal – Volume 4 No. 3 579

DOCUMENT INFO

Shared By:

Stats:

views: | 19 |

posted: | 6/17/2010 |

language: | English |

pages: | 9 |

Description:
UBICC, the Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal [ISSN 1992-8424], is an international scientific and educational organization dedicated to advancing the arts, sciences, and applications of information technology. With a world-wide membership, UBICC is a leading resource for computing professionals and students working in the various fields of Information Technology, and for interpreting the impact of information technology on society.

SHARED BY

About
UBICC, the Ubiquitous Computing and Communication Journal [ISSN 1992-8424], is an international scientific and educational organization dedicated to advancing the arts, sciences, and applications of information technology. With a world-wide membership, UBICC is a leading resource for computing professionals and students working in the various fields of Information Technology, and for interpreting the impact of information technology on society.

OTHER DOCS BY tabindah

Docstoc is the premier online destination to start and grow small businesses. It hosts the best quality and widest selection of professional documents (over 20 million) and resources including expert videos, articles and productivity tools to make every small business better.

Search or Browse for any specific document or resource you need for your business. Or explore our curated resources for Starting a Business, Growing a Business or for Professional Development.

Feel free to Contact Us with any questions you might have.