Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T01:08:49.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coinductive predicates and final sequences in a fibration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

ICHIRO HASUO ,
TOSHIKI KATAOKA  and
KENTA CHO
ICHIRO HASUO
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan Email: ichiro@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
TOSHIKI KATAOKA
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan Email: ichiro@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Research Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 5-3-1, Kouji-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0083, Japan Email: toshikik@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
KENTA CHO
Affiliation:
Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, P.O.Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands Email: K.Cho@cs.ru.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Coinductive predicates express persisting ‘safety’ specifications of transition systems. Previous observations by Hermida and Jacobs identify coinductive predicates as suitable final coalgebras in a fibration – a categorical abstraction of predicate logic. In this paper, we follow the spirit of a seminal work by Worrell and study final sequences in a fibration. Our main contribution is to identify some categorical ‘size restriction’ axioms that guarantee stabilization of final sequences after ω steps. In its course, we develop a relevant categorical infrastructure that relates fibrations and locally presentable categories, a combination that does not seem to be studied a lot. The genericity of our fibrational framework can be exploited for binary relations (i.e. the logic of ‘binary predicates’) for which a coinductive predicate is bisimilarity, constructive logics (where interests are growing in coinductive predicates) and logics for name-passing processes.

Information

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , April 2018 , pp. 562 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

References

Abramsky, S. and Winschel, V. (2015). Coalgebraic analysis of subgame-perfect equilibria in infinite games without discounting. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science. To appear.Google Scholar
Adámek, J. (2003). On final coalgebras of continuous functors. Theoretical Computer Science 294 (1/2) 3–29.Google Scholar
Adámek, J., Bonchi, F., Hülsbusch, M., König, B., Milius, S. and Silva, A. (2012). A coalgebraic perspective on minimization and determinization. In: Birkedal, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures - 15th International Conference, FoSSaCS 2012, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7213, Springer, 58–73.Google Scholar
Adámek, J. and Rosický, J. (1994). Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 189, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkey, R., Ghani, N., Jacobs, B. and Johann, P. (2012). Fibrational induction meets effects. In: Birkedal, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures - 15th International Conference, FOSSACS 2012, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7213, Springer, 42–57.Google Scholar
Bénabou, J. (1975). Théories relatives à un corpus. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences Paris 281 A831–A834.Google Scholar
Bertot, Y. and Komendantskaya, E. (2008). Inductive and coinductive components of corecursive functions in Coq. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 203 (5) 25–47.Google Scholar
Bonchi, F., Petrisan, D., Pous, D. and Rot, J. (2014). Coinduction up-to in a fibrational setting. In: Henzinger, T.A. and Miller, D. (eds.) Joint Meeting of the 23rd EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL) and the 29th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), CSL-LICS '14, ACM, 20.Google Scholar
Bonchi, F. and Pous, D. (2013). Checking NFA equivalence with bisimulations up to congruence. In Giacobazzi, R. and Cousot, R., (eds). The 40th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp osium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL '13, ACM, 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradfield, J. and Stirling, C. (2006). Modal mu-calculi. In: Blackburn, P., vanAAAABenthem, J. and Wolter, F. (eds.) Handbook of Modal Logic, Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, vol. 3, chapter 12. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cîrstea, C. (2011). Maximal traces and path-based coalgebraic temporal logics. Theoretical Computer Science 412 (38) 5025–5042.Google Scholar
Cîrstea, C., Kupke, C. and Pattinson, D. (2009). EXPTIME tableaux for the coalgebraic μ-calculus. In: Grädel, E. and Kahle, R. (eds.) CSL, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5771, Springer, 179–193.Google Scholar
Cîrstea, C., Kurz, A., Pattinson, D., Schröder, L., and Venema, Y. (2011). Modal logics are coalgebraic. Comput. J. 54 (1) 31–41.Google Scholar
Cîrstea, C. and Sadrzadeh, M. (2008). Modular games for coalgebraic fixed point logics. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 203 (5) 71–92.Google Scholar
Cousot, P. and Cousot, R. (1979). Constructive versions of Tarski's fixed point theorems. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 82 (1) 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, G.L., Montanari, U. and Pistore, M. (2002). Minimizing transition systems for name passing calculi: A co-algebraic formulation. In: Nielsen, M. and Engberg, U. (eds.) Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, FoSSaCS 2002. Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2303, Springer, 129–158.Google Scholar
Ferrari, G.L., Montanari, U. and Tuosto, E. (2005). Coalgebraic minimization of HD-automata for the π-calculus using polymorphic types. Theoretical Computer Science 331 (2–3) 325–365.Google Scholar
Fiore, M. and Turi, D. (2001). Semantics of name and value passing. In: Logic in Computer Science, IEEE, Computer Science Press, 93–104.Google Scholar
Fiore, M.P. and Staton, S. (2006). Comparing operational models of name-passing process calculi. Information and Computer 204 (4) 524–560.Google Scholar
Fiore, M.P. and Staton, S. (2009). A congruence rule format for name-passing process calculi. Information and Computer 207 (2) 209–236.Google Scholar
Fumex, C., Ghani, N. and Johann, P. (2011). Indexed induction and coinduction, fibrationally. In: Corradini, A., Klin, B. and Cîrstea, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science - 4th International Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6859, Springer, 176–191.Google Scholar
Gabriel, P. and Ulmer, F. (1971). Lokal Präsentierbare Kategorien. Springer.Google Scholar
Hasuo, I. (2010). Generic forward and backward simulations II: Probabilistic simulation. In: Gastin, P. and Laroussinie, F. (eds.) (2010). CONCUR 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6269, Springer, 447–461.Google Scholar
Hasuo, I., Cho, K., Kataoka, T. and Jacobs, B. (2013). Coinductive predicates and final sequences in a fibration. In: Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics (MFPS XXIX), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 197–214.Google Scholar
Hasuo, I., Jacobs, B. and Sokolova, A. (2007). Generic trace semantics via coinduction. Logical Methods in Computer Science 3 (4:11).Google Scholar
Hasuo, I., Shimizu, S. and Cîrstea, C. (2016). Lattice-theoretic progress measures and coalgebraic model checking. In: Bodik, R. and Majumdar, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM, 718–732.Google Scholar
Hennessy, M. and Milner, R. (1985). Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. Journal of ACM 32 (1) 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, U. and Jacobs, B. (1997). Proof principles for datatypes with iterated recursion. In: Moggi, E. and Rosolini, G. (eds.) Category Theory and Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1290, Springer, Berlin, 220–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermida, C. (1993). Fibrations, Logical Predicates and Indeterminates. PhD thesis, Univ. Edinburgh. Techn. rep. LFCS-93-277.Google Scholar
Hermida, C. and Jacobs, B. (1998). Structural induction and coinduction in a fibrational setting. Information & Computation 145 (2) 107–152.Google Scholar
Hur, C.-K., Neis, G., Dreyer, D. and Vafeiadis, V. (2013). The power of parameterization in coinductive proof. In: Giacobazzi, R. and Cousot, R. (eds.) (2013). The 40th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM, 193–206.Google Scholar
Jacobs, B. (1999). Categorical Logic and Type Theory. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jacobs, B. (2004). Trace semantics for coalgebras. In: Adámek, J. and Milius, S. (eds.) Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 106, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jacobs, B. (2010). Predicate logic for functors and monads. Preprint, available at the author's webpage.Google Scholar
Jacobs, B. (2012). Introduction to coalgebra. Towards mathematics of states and observations. Draft of a book (ver. 2.0), available online.Google Scholar
Klin, B. (2007). Coalgebraic modal logic beyond Sets . In: MFPS XXIII, vol. 173, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 177–201.Google Scholar
Kozen, D. and Ruozzi, N. (2009). Applications of metric coinduction. Logical Methods in Computer Science 5 (3).Google Scholar
Kupke, C. (2007). Terminal sequence induction via games. In: Bosch, P., Gabelaia, D., and Lang, J. (eds.) TbiLLC, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5422, Springer, 257–271.Google Scholar
MacAAAALane, S. and Moerdijk, I. (1992). Sheaves in Geometry and Logic. A First Introduction to Topos Theory, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Makkai, M. and Paré, R. (1989). Accessible categories: The foundations of categorical model theory. Contemporary Mathematics 104.Google Scholar
Miculan, M. (2008). A categorical model of the fusion calculus. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 218 275–293.Google Scholar
Nakata, K., Uustalu, T. and Bezem, M. (2011). A proof pearl with the fan theorem and bar induction–-walking through infinite trees with mixed induction and coinduction. In: Yang, H. (eds.) APLAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7078, Springer, 353–368.Google Scholar
Pattinson, D. (2003). An introduction to the theory of coalgebras. Course notes for NASSLLI. Available online.Google Scholar
Porst, H.-E. (2011). Algebraic lattices and locally finitely presentable categories. Algebra Universalis 65 (3) 285–298.Google Scholar
Rutten, J.J.M.M. (2000). Universal coalgebra: A theory of systems. Theoretical Computer Science 249 (1) 3–80.Google Scholar
Stark, I. (1996). A fully abstract domain model for the π-calculus. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society, 36–42.Google Scholar
Staton, S. (2011). Relating coalgebraic notions of bisimulation. Logical Methods in Computer Science 7 (1).Google Scholar
Venema, Y. (2006). Automata and fixed point logic: A coalgebraic perspective. Information and Computation 204 (4) 637–678.Google Scholar
Worrell, J. (2005). On the final sequence of a finitary set functor. Theoretical Computer Science 338 (1–3) 184–199.Google Scholar