Fair termination revisited - with delay

AbstractA proof method for establishing the fair termination and total correctness of both nondeterministic and concurrent programs is presented. The method calls for the extension of state by auxiliary delay variables which count down to the instant in which certain action will be scheduled. It then uses well-founded ranking to prove fair termination allowing nested fair selection and loops

Classes of Terminating Logic Programs

Termination of logic programs depends critically on the selection rule, i.e. the rule that determines which atom is selected in each resolution step. In this article, we classify programs (and queries) according to the selection rules for which they terminate. This is a survey and unified view on different approaches in the literature. For each class, we present a sufficient, for most classes even necessary, criterion for determining that a program is in that class. We study six classes: a program strongly terminates if it terminates for all selection rules; a program input terminates if it terminates for selection rules which only select atoms that are sufficiently instantiated in their input positions, so that these arguments do not get instantiated any further by the unification; a program local delay terminates if it terminates for local selection rules which only select atoms that are bounded w.r.t. an appropriate level mapping; a program left-terminates if it terminates for the usual left-to-right selection rule; a program exists-terminates if there exists a selection rule for which it terminates; finally, a program has bounded nondeterminism if it only has finitely many refutations. We propose a semantics-preserving transformation from programs with bounded nondeterminism into strongly terminating programs. Moreover, by unifying different formalisms and making appropriate assumptions, we are able to establish a formal hierarchy between the different classes.Comment: 50 pages. The following mistake was corrected: In figure 5, the first clause for insert was insert([],X,[X]

A Critique of the new 2009 Arbitration Law of Lagos State

The article critically examines the sections of the new law with special reference to its relationship with the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act

On the importance of nonlinear modeling in computer performance prediction

Computers are nonlinear dynamical systems that exhibit complex and sometimes even chaotic behavior. The models used in the computer systems community, however, are linear. This paper is an exploration of that disconnect: when linear models are adequate for predicting computer performance and when they are not. Specifically, we build linear and nonlinear models of the processor load of an Intel i7-based computer as it executes a range of different programs. We then use those models to predict the processor loads forward in time and compare those forecasts to the true continuations of the time seriesComment: Appeared in "Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis

Buffered Simulation Games for B\"uchi Automata

Simulation relations are an important tool in automata theory because they provide efficiently computable approximations to language inclusion. In recent years, extensions of ordinary simulations have been studied, for instance multi-pebble and multi-letter simulations which yield better approximations and are still polynomial-time computable. In this paper we study the limitations of approximating language inclusion in this way: we introduce a natural extension of multi-letter simulations called buffered simulations. They are based on a simulation game in which the two players share a FIFO buffer of unbounded size. We consider two variants of these buffered games called continuous and look-ahead simulation which differ in how elements can be removed from the FIFO buffer. We show that look-ahead simulation, the simpler one, is already PSPACE-hard, i.e. computationally as hard as language inclusion itself. Continuous simulation is even EXPTIME-hard. We also provide matching upper bounds for solving these games with infinite state spaces.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527