Advertisement

Solo Diagrams

  • Cosimo Laneve
  • Joachim Parrow
  • Björn Victor
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2215)

Abstract

We address the problems of implementing the replication operator efficiently in the solos calculus — a calculus of mobile processes without prefix. This calculus is expressive enough to admit an encoding of the whole fusion calculus and thus the π-calculus. We show that nested occurrences of replication can be avoided, that the size of replicated terms can be limited to three particles, and that the usual unfolding semantics of replication can be replaced by three simple reduction rules. To illustrate the results and show how the calculus can be efficiently implemented we present a graphic representation of agents in the solos calculus, adapting ideas from interaction diagrams and pi-nets.

Keywords

Internal Node Linear Logic Reduction Rule Labelling Function Label Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Bellin and P. Scott. On the π-calculus and linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 135:11–65, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Boudol. Asynchrony and the π-calculus (note). Rapport de Recherche 1702, INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, May 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Fournet and G. Gonthier. The reflexive chemical abstract machine and the join-calculus. In Proc. of POPL’ 96, pages 372–385. ACM, Jan. 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Fu. A proof-theoretical approach to communication. In P. Degano, R. Gorrieri, and A. Marchetti-Spaccamela, editors, Proc. of ICALP’ 97, volume 1256 of LNCS, pages 325–335. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. Fu. Reaction graph. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, Science Press, China, 13(6):510–530, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Gonthier, M. Abadi, and J.-J. Lévy. The geometry of optimal lambda reduction. In Proc. of POPL’ 92, pages 15–26. ACM Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Honda and M. Tokoro. An object calculus for asynchronous communication. In P. America, editor, Proc. of ECOOP’ 91, volume 512 of LNCS, pages 133–147. Springer, July 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Lafont. Interaction nets. In Proc. of POPL’ 90, pages 95–108. ACM Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Laneve and B. Victor. Solos in concert. In J. Wiederman, P. van Emde Boas, and M. Nielsen, editors, Proc. of ICALP’ 99, volume 1644 of LNCS, pages 513–523. Springer, July 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Laneve and B. Victor. Solos in concert. Full version of [10], submitted for journal publication, February 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Milner. Functions as processes. Journal of Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2(2):119–141, 1992.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Milner. The polyadic π-calculus: A tutorial. In F. L. Bauer, W. Brauer, and H. Schwichtenberg, editors, Logic and Algebra of Specification, volume 94 of Series F. NATO ASI, Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Milner. Pi-nets: A graphical form of π-calculus. In D. Sannella, editor, Proc. of ESOP’ 94, volume 788 of LNCS, pages 26–42. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes, part I/II. Information and Computation, 100:1–77, Sept. 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Milner and D. Sangiorgi. Barbed bisimulation. In W. Kuich, editor, Proc. of ICALP’ 92, volume 623 of LNCS, pages 685–695. Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Parrow. Interaction diagrams. Nordic Journal of Computing, 2:407–443, 1995.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Parrow. Trios in concert. In G. Plotkin, C. Stirling, and M. Tofte, editors, Proof, Language and Interaction: Essays in Honour of Robin Milner, Foundations of Computing. MIT Press, May 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Parrow and B. Victor. The fusion calculus: Expressiveness and symmetry in mobile processes. In Proc. of LICS’ 98, pages 176–185. IEEE, Computer Society Press, July 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. C. Pierce and D. N. Turner. Pict: A programming language based on the picalculus. In G. Plotkin, C. Stirling, and M. Tofte, editors, Proof, Language and Interaction: Essays in Honour of Robin Milner, Foundations of Computing. MIT Press, May 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 8(5):447–479, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    N. Yoshida. Graph notation for concurrent combinators. In T. Ito and A. Yonezawa, editors, Proc. of TPPP’ 94, volume 907 of LNCS, pages 393–412. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cosimo Laneve
    • 1
  • Joachim Parrow
    • 2
  • Björn Victor
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of BolognaItaly
  2. 2.Royal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer SystemsUppsala UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations