vault backup: 2025-04-30 13:27:49

Concurrent Systems/notes/12b - CCS cose varie.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ $$S_{2}^{(2)} \triangleq v \cdot S_{1}^{(2)}$$
 
 If we consider S(2) as the specification of the expected behavior of a binary semaphore and S(1) | S(1) as its concrete implementation, we can show that $$S^{(1)}|S^{(1)} \space \textasciitilde \space S^{2}$$
 This means that the implementation and the specification do coincide. To show this equivalence, it suffices to show that following relation is a bisimulation:
-![](../../Pasted%20image%2020250415082906.png)
+![](images/Pasted%20image%2020250415082906.png)
 
 ## Restrictions
 **Proposition:** $a.P \textbackslash a ∼ 0$
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ One of the main aims of an equivalence notion between processes is to make equat
 **This feature on an equivalence makes it a *congruence***
 Not all equivalences are necessarily congruences (even though most of them are).
 To properly define a congruence, we first need to define an execution context, and then what it means to run a process in a context. Intuitively:
-![200](../../Pasted%20image%2020250415090109.png)
+![200](images/Pasted%20image%2020250415090109.png)
 
 where C is a context (i.e., a process with a hole ☐), P is a process, and $C[P]$ denotes filling the hole with P