Executable Behaviour and the π-Calculus (extended abstract)

Reactive Turing machines extend classical Turing machines with a facility to model observable interactive behaviour. We call a behaviour executable if, and only if, it is behaviourally equivalent to the behaviour of a reactive Turing machine. In this paper, we study the relationship between executable behaviour and behaviour that can be specified in the pi-calculus. We establish that all executable behaviour can be specified in the pi-calculus up to divergence-preserving branching bisimilarity. The converse, however, is not true due to (intended) limitations of the model of reactive Turing machines. That is, the pi-calculus allows the specification of behaviour that is not executable up to divergence-preserving branching bisimilarity. Motivated by an intuitive understanding of executability, we then consider a restriction on the operational semantics of the pi-calculus that does associate with every pi-term executable behaviour, at least up to the version of branching bisimilarity that does not require the preservation of divergence.

[1]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Calculus of Mobile Processes, II , 1992, Inf. Comput..

[2]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics , 1996, JACM.

[3]  Daniele Gorla,et al.  Towards a unified approach to encodability and separation results for process calculi , 2008, Inf. Comput..

[4]  Bas Luttik,et al.  Executable Behaviour and the $π$-Calculus , 2014, ArXiv.

[5]  Twan Basten,et al.  Branching Bisimilarity is an Equivalence Indeed! , 1996, Inf. Process. Lett..

[6]  C. Petri.  Kommunikation mit Automaten , 1962 .

[7]  S. Abramsky.  The lazy lambda calculus , 1990 .

[8]  Jos C. M. Baeten,et al.  Process Algebra: Equational Theories of Communicating Processes , 2009 .

[9]  Yuxi Fu,et al.  On the expressiveness of interaction , 2010, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Jos C. M. Baeten,et al.  Reactive Turing machines , 2013, Inf. Comput..

[11]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  On the Consistency of Koomen's Fair Abstraction Rule , 1987, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Davide Sangiorgi,et al.  The Pi-Calculus - a theory of mobile processes , 2001 .

[13]  Bas Luttik,et al.  Branching Bisimilarity with Explicit Divergence , 2009, Fundam. Informaticae.

[14]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  On the Development of Reactive Systems , 1989, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems.

[15]  Frank Thilly,et al.  The Theory of Interaction , 1901 .

[16]  A. Turing.  On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. , 1937 .

[17]  Peter Wegner,et al.  The Interactive Nature of Computing: Refuting the Strong Church–Turing Thesis , 2008, Minds and Machines.

[18]  Robin Milner,et al.  Functions as processes , 1990, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[19]  Iain Phillips,et al.  A Note on Expressiveness of Process Algebra , 1993, Theory and Formal Methods.

[20]  Eugene Eberbach,et al.  The $-calculus process algebra for problem solving: A paradigmatic shift in handling hard computational problems , 2007, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  ROBIN MILNER,et al.  Edinburgh Research Explorer A Calculus of Mobile Processes, I , 2003 .

[22]  Maurizio Gabbrielli,et al.  On the expressive power of recursion, replication and iteration in process calculi , 2009, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[23]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms , 1997, CACM.

[24]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  The Linear Time - Branching Time Spectrum II , 1993, CONCUR.