A criterion for separating process calculi

We introduce a new criterion, replacement freeness, to discern the relative expressiveness of process calculi. Intuitively, a calculus is strongly replacement free if replacing, within an enclosing context, a process that cannot perform any visible action by an arbitrary process never inhibits the capability of the resulting process to perform a visible action. We prove that there exists no compositional and interaction sensitive encoding of a not strongly replacement free calculus into any strongly replacement free one. We then define a weaker version of replacement freeness, by only considering replacement of closed processes, and prove that, if we additionally require the encoding to preserve name independence, it is not even possible to encode a non replacement free calculus into a weakly replacement free one. As a consequence of our encodability results, we get that many calculi equipped with priority are not replacement free and hence are not encodable into mainstream calculi like CCS and pi-calculus, that instead are strongly replacement free. We also prove that variants of pi-calculus with match among names, pattern matching or polyadic synchronization are only weakly replacement free, hence they are separated both from process calculi with priority and from mainstream calculi.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS'10, arXiv:1011.601

A Polynomial Translation of pi-calculus FCPs to Safe Petri Nets

We develop a polynomial translation from finite control pi-calculus processes to safe low-level Petri nets. To our knowledge, this is the first such translation. It is natural in that there is a close correspondence between the control flows, enjoys a bisimulation result, and is suitable for practical model checking.Comment: To appear in special issue on best papers of CONCUR'12 of Logical Methods in Computer Scienc

Matching in the Pi-Calculus

We study whether, in the pi-calculus, the match prefix-a conditional operator testing two names for (syntactic) equality-is expressible via the other operators. Previously, Carbone and Maffeis proved that matching is not expressible this way under rather strong requirements (preservation and reflection of observables). Later on, Gorla developed a by now widely-tested set of criteria for encodings that allows much more freedom (e.g. instead of direct translations of observables it allows comparison of calculi with respect to reachability of successful states). In this paper, we offer a considerably stronger separation result on the non-expressibility of matching using only Gorla's relaxed requirements.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2014, arXiv:1408.127

On the Expressiveness of Intensional Communication

The expressiveness of communication primitives has been explored in a common framework based on the pi-calculus by considering four features: synchronism (asynchronous vs synchronous), arity (monadic vs polyadic data), communication medium (shared dataspaces vs channel-based), and pattern-matching (binding to a name vs testing name equality). Here pattern-matching is generalised to account for terms with internal structure such as in recent calculi like Spi calculi, Concurrent Pattern Calculus and Psi calculi. This paper explores intensionality upon terms, in particular communication primitives that can match upon both names and structures. By means of possibility/impossibility of encodings, this paper shows that intensionality alone can encode synchronism, arity, communication-medium, and pattern-matching, yet no combination of these without intensionality can encode any intensional language.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2014, arXiv:1408.127

Matching in the Pi-Calculus (Technical Report)

We study whether, in the pi-calculus, the match prefix---a conditional operator testing two names for (syntactic) equality---is expressible via the other operators. Previously, Carbone and Maffeis proved that matching is not expressible this way under rather strong requirements (preservation and reflection of observables). Later on, Gorla developed a by now widely-tested set of criteria for encodings that allows much more freedom (e.g. instead of direct translations of observables it allows comparison of calculi with respect to reachability of successful states). In this paper, we offer a considerably stronger separation result on the non-expressibility of matching using only Gorla's relaxed requirements.Comment: This report extends a paper in EXPRESS/SOS'14 and provides the missing proof

On the Expressiveness of Joining

The expressiveness of communication primitives has been explored in a common framework based on the pi-calculus by considering four features: synchronism (asynchronous vs synchronous), arity (monadic vs polyadic data), communication medium (shared dataspaces vs channel-based), and pattern-matching (binding to a name vs testing name equality vs intensionality). Here another dimension coordination is considered that accounts for the number of processes required for an interaction to occur. Coordination generalises binary languages such as pi-calculus to joining languages that combine inputs such as the Join Calculus and general rendezvous calculus. By means of possibility/impossibility of encodings, this paper shows coordination is unrelated to the other features. That is, joining languages are more expressive than binary languages, and no combination of the other features can encode a joining language into a binary language. Further, joining is not able to encode any of the other features unless they could be encoded otherwise.Comment: In Proceedings ICE 2015, arXiv:1508.04595. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1408.145

Are there new models of computation? Reply to Wegner and Eberbach

Wegner and Eberbach[Weg04b] have argued that there are fundamental limitations to Turing Machines as a foundation of computability and that these can be overcome by so-called superTuring models such as interaction machines, the [pi]calculus and the $-calculus. In this paper we contest Weger and Eberbach claims