Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T13:28:54.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The modal μ-calculus hierarchy over restricted classes of transition systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Luca Alberucci  and
Alessandro Facchini
Luca Alberucci
Affiliation:
Institute for Applied Mathematics, University of Bern, Ch-3012 Bern, Switzerland, E-mail: albe@iam.unibe.ch
Alessandro Facchini
Affiliation:
Isi-Hec, University of Lausanne, Ch-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Labri, University of Bordeaux 1, 351, Cours de la Liberation, F-33405 Talence Cedex, France, E-mail: alessandro.facchini@unil.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the strictness of the modal μ-calculus hierarchy over some restricted classes of transition systems. First, we prove that over transitive systems the hierarchy collapses to the alternation-free fragment. In order to do this the finite model theorem for transitive transition systems is proved. Further, we verify that if symmetry is added to transitivity the hierarchy collapses to the purely modal fragment. Finally, we show that the hierarchy is strict over reflexive frames. By proving the finite model theorem for reflexive systems the same results holds for finite models.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 74 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 1367 - 1400
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Alberucci, L., Strictness of the modal μ-calculus hierarchy. In Grädel, et al. [13], pp. 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Alberucci, L., A syntactical treatment of simultaneous fixpoints in the modal μ-calculus, Technical report, University of Berne, 2008.Google Scholar
[3]Alberucci, L. and Facchini, A., On modal μ-calculus and Gödel-Löb logic, Studia Logica, vol. 91 (2009), pp. 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Alberucci, L. and Krähenbühl, J., Justifying induction on modal μ-formulae, in preparation.Google Scholar
[5]Arnold, A., The μ-calculus alternation-depth hierarchy is strict on binary trees, ITA, vol. 33 (1999), no. 4/5, pp. 329–340.Google Scholar
[6]Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., and Venema, Y., Modal logic, Cambridge University Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Bradfield, J., The modal u-calculus alternation hierarchy is strict, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 195 (1998), no. 2, pp. 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Bradfield, J., Simplifying the modal μ-calculus alternation hierarchy, STACS, 1998, 1998, pp. 39–49.Google Scholar
[9]Bradfield, J. and Stirling, C., Modal logic and mu-calculi, Handbook of process algebra (Bergstra, J., Ponse, A., and Smolka, S., editors), Elsevier, North-Holland, 2001, pp. 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]D'agostino, G. and Lenzi, G., On the μ-calculus over transitive and finite transitive frames, submitted, 2008.Google Scholar
[11]Dawar, A. and Otto, M., Modal characterisation theorems over special classes of frames, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, to appear.Google Scholar
[12]Emerson, E. A. and Jutla, C. S., Tree automata, μ-calculus and determinacy (extended abstract), FOCS, 1991, 1991, pp. 368–377.Google Scholar
[13]Grädel, E., Thomas, W., and Wilke, T. (editors), Automata, logics, and infinite games, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 2500, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Hughes, G. E. and Cresswell, M. J., A new introduction to modal logic, Routledge, London, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Kirsten, D., Alternating tree automata and parity games, In Grädel, et al. [13], pp. 157–167.Google Scholar
[16]Kozen, D., Results on thepropositional mu-calculus, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 27 (1983), pp. 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Kozen, D., A finite model theorem for the propositional mu-calculus, Studia Logica, vol. 47 (1988), no. 3, pp. 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Lenzi, G., A hierarchy theorem for the μ-calculus, ICALP, 1996, 1996, pp. 87–97.Google Scholar
[19]Lenzi, G., The transitive μ-calculus is Büchi-definable, WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics, vol. 5 (2006), no. 9, pp. 1021–1026.Google Scholar
[20]Lenzi, G., Personal communication, 02 26th 2008.Google Scholar
[21]Mazala, R., Infinite games, In Grädel, et al. [13], pp. 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Mostowski, A. W., Games with forbidden position, Technical Report 78, University of Gdansk, 1991.Google Scholar
[23]Scott, D. and de Barker, J., A theory of programs, unpublished manuscript, 1969, IBM, Vienna.Google Scholar
[24]Stirling, C., Modal and temporal properties of processes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]Streett, R. S. and Emerson, E. A., An automata theoretic decision procedure for the propositional μ-calculus, Information and Computation, vol. 81 (1989), no. 3, pp. 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26]Tarski, A., A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 5 (1955), no. 2, pp. 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Cate, B. Ten, Fontaine, G., and Litak, T., Some modal aspects of XPath, Methods for modalities, 2007.Google Scholar
[28]Van Benthem, J., Modal frame correspondences and fixed-points, Studia Logica, vol. 83 (2006), pp. 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29]Visser, A., Uniform interpolation and layered bisimulation, Gödel '96 (Brno, 1996), Lectures Notes in Logic, vol. 6, Springer, Berlin, 1996, pp. 139–164.Google Scholar
[30]Visser, A., Lob's logic meets the μ-calculus, Processes, terms and cycles, steps on the road to infinity, essays dedicated to Jan Willem Klop on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Middeldorp, A., Oostrom, V. van, Raamsdonk, F. van, and Vrijer, R. de, editors), Springer, Berlin, 2005, pp. 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31]Walukiewicz, I., Monadic second-order logic on tree-like structures, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 275 (2002), no. 1-2, pp. 311–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[32]Wilke, T., Alternating tree automata, parity games, and modal μ-calculus, Bulletin of the Belgian Mathematical Society, vol. 8 (2001), no. 2, pp. 359–391.Google Scholar