vault backup: 2025-04-27 23:00:45
This commit is contained in:
parent
4116b92b5b
commit
ef845edd98
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ Let's go!
|
||||||
## Congruence
|
## Congruence
|
||||||
One of the main aims of an equivalence notion between processes is to make equational reasonings of the kind: “if P and Q are equivalent, then they can be interchangeably used in any execution context”.
|
One of the main aims of an equivalence notion between processes is to make equational reasonings of the kind: “if P and Q are equivalent, then they can be interchangeably used in any execution context”.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This feature on an equivalence makes it a *congruence*
|
**This feature on an equivalence makes it a *congruence***
|
||||||
Not all equivalences are necessarily congruences (even though most of them are).
|
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:
|
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:
|
||||||

|

|
||||||
|
@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ where M denotes a sum.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
An equivalence relation $R$ is a congruence if and only if
|
An equivalence relation $R$ is a congruence if and only if
|
||||||
$$\forall (P, Q) \in R, \forall C.(C[P], C[Q]) \in R$$
|
$$\forall (P, Q) \in R, \forall C.(C[P], C[Q]) \in R$$
|
||||||
Is bisimilarity a congruence? Yes.
|
**Is bisimilarity a congruence? Yes.**
|
||||||
**Theorem:**
|
**Theorem:**
|
||||||
$$if \space P ∼ Q \space then \space \forall C.C[P] ∼ C[Q]$$
|
$$if \space P ∼ Q \space then \space \forall C.C[P] ∼ C[Q]$$
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue