Distributed Programs

  • Krzysztof R. Apt
  • Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog
Part of the Texts and Monographs in Computer Science book series (MCS)


Many real systems consist of a number of physically distributed components that work independently using their private storage, but also communicate from time to time by explicit message passing. Such systems are called distributed systems. An example is an airline reservation system consisting of a large number of terminals in many different travel agencies and a central data base for keeping the current status of all flights. Here the data base and the terminals are the components of the system, and communication is possible between each terminal and the data base.


Proof System Main Loop Proof Theory Total Correctness Partial Correctness 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [ABC87]
    K.R. Apt, L. Bougé, and Ph. Clermont. Two normal form theorems for CSP programs. Information Processing Letters, 26: 165–171, 1987.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [AFK88]
    K.R. Apt, N. Francez, and S. Katz. Appraising fairness in distributed languages. Distributed Computing, 2 (4): 226–241, August 1988.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [AFR80]
    K.R. Apt, N. Francez, and W.P. de Roever. A proof system for communicating sequential processes. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 2 (3): 359–385, 1980.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Apt86]
    K.R. Apt. Correctness proofs of distributed termination algorithms. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8: 388–405, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [BF88]
    L. Bougé and N. Francez. A compositional approach to superimposition. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 240–249, San Diego, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [BKS88]
    R.J.R. Back and R. Kurki-Suonio. Serializability in distributed systems with handshaking. In T. Lepistö and A. Salomaa, editors, Proceedings of International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming (ICALP ‘88),pages 52–66, New York, 1988. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 317, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. [CM88]
    K.M. Chandy and J. Misra. Parallel Program Design: A Foundation. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [DFG83]
    E.W. Dijkstra, W.H. Feijen, and A.J.M. van Gasteren. Derivation of a termination detection algorithm for distributed computations. Information Processing Letters, 16 (5): 217–219, 1983.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [FHLR79]
    N. Francez, C.A.R. Hoare, D.J. Lehmann, and W.P. de Roever. Semantics of nondeterminism, concurrency and communication. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 19 (3): 290–308, 1979.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [FLP84]
    N. Francez, D.J. Lehmann, and A. Pnueli. A linear history semantics for languages for distributed computing. Theoretical Computer Science, 32: 25–46, 1984.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [FR82]
    N. Francez and M. Rodeh. Achieving distributed termination without freezing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-8(3): 287–292, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. [Fra80]
    N. Francez. Distributed termination. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 2 (1): 42–55, 1980.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [FRS81]
    N. Francez, M. Rodeh, and M. Sintzoff. Distributed termination with interval assertions. In J. Diaz, editor, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Formalization of Programming Concepts (EATCS), Penniscola, Spain,New York, 1981. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 107, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. [GFK84]
    O. Grumberg, N. Francez, and S. Katz. Fair termination of communicating processes. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM SIGACT Conference on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 254–265, Vancouver, Canada, August 1984.Google Scholar
  15. [Hoa78]
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. Communications of the ACM, 21: 666–677, 1978.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Hoa85]
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [HR86]
    J. Hooman and W.P. de Roever. The quest goes on: a survey of proofsystems for partial correctness of CSP. In Current Trends in Concurrency,pages 343–395, New York, 1986. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 224, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. [Kat87]
    S. Katz. A superimposition control construct for distributed systems. Technical Report STP268–87, MCC, Austin, TX, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. [LG81]
    G. Levin and D. Gries. A proof technique for communicating sequential processes. Acta Informatica, 15: 281–302, 1981.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [Mat87]
    F. Mattem. Algorithms for distributed termination detection. Distributed Computing, 2: 161–175, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [O1d91]
    E.-R. Olderog. Correctness proof of a CSP program transformation. 1991. In preparation.Google Scholar
  22. [P1o82]
    G.D. Plotkin. An operational semantics for CSP. In D. Bjorner, editor, Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, pages 199–225, Amsterdam, 1982. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  23. [Zöb88]
    D. Zöbel. Normalform-Transformationen für CSP-Programme. Informatik: Forschung und Entwicklung, 3: 64–76, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof R. Apt
    • 1
  • Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog
    • 2
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations