marcorealacci/master-degree-notes
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

vault backup: 2025-03-18 16:25:04

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Marco Realacci 2025-03-18 16:25:04 +01:00
parent e9ad07bfd4
commit b1afe923d0
1 changed files with 5 additions and 1 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
Concurrent Systems/notes/6 - Atomicity.md
View file

@ -52,8 +52,12 @@ We now show that $\to$ is acyclic.
- adjacent edges cannot belong to the same order (e.g. not both $\to_X$), otw. the cycle would be shortable, because of transitivity of the total order!
- adjacent edges cannot belong to orders on different objects
- this would mean that an operation is involved in both $\to_X$ and $\to_Y$ but it is not possible of course
- Hence, at least one $\to_X$ exists and it must be between two $\to_H$ i.e.: $$op1 \to_H op2 \to_X op3 \to_H op4$$
- Hence, at least one $\to_X$ exists and it must be between two $\to_H$ i.e.: $$op1 \to_H op2 \to_X op3 \to_H op4$$, with op1 = op4
- can this be a cycle?
- $op1 \to_H op2$ means that $res(op1) <_H inv(op2)$
- $op2 \to_X op3$ entails that $inv(op2) <_H res(op3)$
- if not, as is a total order, we would have that $res(op3) <_H inv(op2)$, but we then would have a cycle of lenght 2...
- $op2 \to_H op3$ entails that $inv(op2) <_H res(op3)$
> [!PDF|red] class 6, p.6> we would have a cycle of length