To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Among the various ways to construct a characteristicSturmian word, one of the most used consists in defining an infinite sequence of prefixes that are standard. Nevertheless in any characteristic word c, some standard words occur that are not prefixes of c. We characterize all standard words occurring in any characteristic word (and so in any Sturmian word) using firstly morphisms, then standard prefixes and finally palindromes.
We study hybrid systems with strong resets from the perspective of formal language theory. We define a notion of hybrid regular expression and prove a Kleene-like theorem for hybrid systems. We also prove the closure of these systems under determinisation and complementation. Finally, we prove that the reachability problem is undecidable for synchronized products of hybrid systems.
We present two methods based on decimation for computing finite billiard words on any finite alphabet. The first method computes finite billiard words by iteration of some transformation on words. The number of iterations is explicitly bounded. The second one gives a direct formula for the billiard words. Some results remain true for infinite standard Sturmian words, but cannot be used for computation as they only are limit results.
We address the problem of computing the capacity of a covert channel, modeled as a nondeterministic transducer. We give three possible statements of the notion of “covert channel capacity” and relate the different definitions. We then provide several methods allowing the computation of lower and upper bounds for the capacity of a channel. We show that, in some cases, including the case of input-deterministic channels, the capacity of the channel can be computed exactly (e.g. in the form of “the largest root of some polynomial”).
We consider words coding exchange of three intervals withpermutation (3,2,1), here called 3iet words. Recently, acharacterization of substitution invariant 3iet words wasprovided. We study the opposite question: what are the morphismsfixing a 3iet word? We reveal a narrow connection of suchmorphisms and morphisms fixing Sturmian words using the new notionof amicability.
Generalizing the results of Thue (for n = 2) [Norske Vid. Selsk. Skr. Mat. Nat. Kl. 1 (1912) 1–67] and of Klepinin and Sukhanov (for n = 3) [Discrete Appl. Math. 114 (2001) 155–169], we provethat for all n ≥ 2, the critical exponent of the Arshon word of order n is given by (3n–2)/(2n–2), and this exponent is attained at position 1.
Richomme asked the following question:what is the infimum of the real numbers α > 2 such thatthere exists an infinite word that avoids α-powers butcontains arbitrarily large squares beginning at every position?We resolve this question in the case of a binary alphabet by showingthat the answer is α = 7/3.
Threshold languages, which are the (k/(k–1))+-free languages over k-letter alphabets with k ≥ 5, are the minimal infinite power-free languages according to Dejean's conjecture, which is now proved for all alphabets. We study the growth properties of these languages. On the base of obtained structural properties and computer-assisted studies we conjecture that the growth rate of complexity of the threshold language over k letters tends to a constant $\hat{\alpha}\approx1.242$ as k tends to infinity.
We prove that the function that maps a word of a rational language onto its successor for the radix order in this language is a finite union of co-sequential functions.
We show that there are three types of infinite words over the two-letteralphabet {0,1} that avoid the pattern AABBCABBA. These types, P, E0, and E1,differ by the factor complexity and the asymptotic frequency of the letter 0.Type P has polynomial factor complexity and letter frequency $\frac{1}{2}$.Type E0 has exponential factor complexity and the frequency of the letter 0 is at least0.45622 and at most 0.48684. Type E1 is obtained from type E0 by exchanging 0 and 1.
We analyse a simple random process in which a token is moved in the interval A = {0, . . ., n}. Fix a probability distribution μ over D = {1, . . ., n}. Initially, the token is placed in a random position in A. In round t, a random step sized is chosen according to μ. If the token is in position x ≥ d, then it is moved to position x − d. Otherwise it stays put. Let TX be the number of rounds until the token reaches position 0. We show tight bounds for the expectation Eμ(TX) of TX for varying distributions μ. More precisely, we show that . The same bounds are proved for the analogous continuous process, where step sizes and token positions are real values in [0, n + 1), and one measures the time until the token has reached a point in [0, 1). For the proofs, a novel potential function argument is introduced. The research is motivated by the problem of approximating the minimum of a continuous function over [0, 1] with a ‘blind’ optimization strategy.
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
The process theories introduced so far describe the main features of imperative concurrent programming without the explicit mention of time. Implicitly, time is present in the interpretation of many of the operators introduced before. In the process a.x, the action a must be executed before the execution of process x. The process theories introduced so far allow for the description of the ordering of actions relative to each other. This way of describing the execution of actions through time is called qualitative time. Many systems though rely on time in a more quantitative way.
Consider for example the following caller process. A caller takes a phone off the hook. If she hears a certain tone, she dials some number. It does not matter which one. If she does not hear the tone, she puts the phone back on the hook. After dialing the number, the caller waits some time for the other side to pick up the phone. After some conversation, the caller puts the phone back on the hook. In case the call is not answered within some given time, the caller gives up and also puts the phone back on the hook.
To be able to describe such systems in process theory in the same framework as untimed systems, many process theories have been extended with a quantitative notion of timing. In extending the untimed process theories with timing a number of fundamental choices have to be made with respect to the nature of the time domain, the way time appears syntactically in the equational theory, and the way time is incorporated semantically.
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
This book sets the standard for process algebra. It assembles the relevant results of most process algebras currently in use, and presents them in a unified framework and notation. It addresses important extensions of the basic theories, like timing, data parameters, probabilities, priorities, and mobility. It systematically presents a hierarchy of algebras that are increasingly expressive, proving the major properties each time.
For researchers and graduate students in computer science, the book will serve as a reference, offering a complete overview of what is known to date, and referring to further literature where appropriate.
Someone familiar with CCS, the Calculus of Communicating Systems, will recognize the minimal process theory MPT as basic CCS, to which a constant expressing successful termination is added, enabling sequential composition as a basic operator, and will then find a more general parallel-composition operator. Someone familiar with ACP, the Algebra of Communicating Processes, will see that termination is made explicit, leading to a replacement of action constants by action prefixing, but will recognize many other things. The approaches to recursion of CCS and ACP are both explained and integrated. Someone familiar with CSP, Communicating Sequential Processes, will have to cope with more changes, but will see the familiar operators of internal and external choice and parallel composition explained in the present setting.
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
So far, the focus has been on sequential processes: actions can be executed, or alternatives can be explored, starting from a single point of control. In this chapter, the step is taken towards the treatment of parallel or distributed systems: it is allowed that activities exist in parallel. Just allowing separate activity of different components is not enough. A genuine treatment of parallel activity requires in addition a description of interaction between parallel activities.
Suppose there are two sequential processes x and y that can execute actions, and choose alternatives, independently. The merge operator ‖ denotes parallel composition. Thus, the parallel composition of x and y is denoted x ‖ y. To illustrate the intuition behind the algebraic treatment of parallel composition, consider an external observer O that observes process x ‖ y. Observations can be made of executions of actions. Assume that these observations are instantaneous. Then, it can be seen that the observations of actions of x and actions of y will be merged or interleaved in time.
Consider the example a.0 ‖ b.0. This process involves the execution of two actions, one from each component. Observer O might see the execution of a first, and then the execution of b. After this, no further activity is possible. On the other hand, observer O might see the execution of b first, then the execution of a followed by inaction. Finally, the observer might observe the two actions simultaneously.
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
This chapter introduces the semantic domain that is used throughout this book. The goal is to model reactive systems; the most important feature of such systems is the interaction between a system and its environment. To describe such systems, the well-known domain of transition systems, process graphs, or automata is chosen. In fact, it is the domain of non-deterministic (finite) automata known from formal language theory. An automaton models a system in terms of its states and the transitions that lead from one state to another state; transitions are labeled with the actions causing the state change. An automaton is said to describe the operational behavior of a system. An important observation is that, since the subject of study is interacting systems, not just the language generated by an automaton is important, but also the states traversed during a run or execution of the automaton. The term ‘transition system’ is the term most often used in reactive-systems modeling. Thus, also this book uses that term.
The semantic domain serves as the basis for the remainder of the book. The meaning of the various equational theories for reasoning about reactive systems developed in the remaining chapters is defined in terms of the semantic domain, in the way explained in the previous chapter. Technically, it turns out to be useful to embed all transition systems that are of interest in one large set of states and transitions, from which the individual transition systems can be extracted.
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
This second chapter introduces the basic concepts and notations related to equational theories, algebras, and term rewriting systems that are needed for the remainder of the book. Throughout the book, standard mathematical notations are used, in particular from set theory. Notation N = {0, 1, 2, …} denotes the natural numbers.
Equational theories
A central notion of this book is the notion of an equational theory. An equational theory is a signature (defining a ‘language’) together with a set of equations over this signature (the basic laws). Every process algebra in this book is presented as a model of an equational theory, as outlined in the previous chapter.
Definition 2.2.1 (Signature) A signature Σ is a set of constant and function symbols with their arities.
The objects in a signature are called constant and function symbols. The reason for doing so is to distinguish between these purely formal objects and the ‘real’ constants and functions they are meant to represent. In Section 2.3, where interpretations of equational theories are discussed, this point is elaborated further. Note that a constant symbol can also be seen as a function symbol of arity zero.
Example 2.2.2 (Signature) As an example, consider the signature Σ1 consisting of the constant symbol 0, the unary function symbol s, and the binary function symbols a and m.
J. C. M. Baeten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,T. Basten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands,M. A. Reniers, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Nowadays, much of what is still called ‘computing’ involves the behavior of composite systems whose members interact continually with their environment. A better word is ‘informatics’, because we are concerned not just with calculation, but rather with autonomous agents that interact with – or inform – one another. This interactivity bursts the bounds of the sequential calculation that still dominates many programming languages. Does it enjoy a theory as firm and complete as the theory of sequential computation? Not yet, but we are getting there.
What is an informatic process? The answer must involve phenomena foreign to sequential calculation. For example can an informatic system, with many interacting components, achieve deterministic behavior? If it can, that is a special case; non-determinism is the norm, not the exception. Does a probability distribution, perhaps based upon the uncertainty of timing, replace determinism? Again, how exactly do these components interact; do they send each other messages, like email, to be picked up when convenient? – or is each interaction a kind of synchronized handshake?
Over the last few decades many models for interactive behavior have been proposed. This book is the fruit of 25 years of experience with an algebraic approach, in which the constructors by which an informatic system is assembled are characterized by their algebraic properties. The characteristics are temporal, in the same way that sequential processes are temporal; they are also spatial, describing how agents are interconnected. And their marriage is complex.