\documentclass[99-notes-packed.tex]{subfiles}

\begin{document}

% \paragraph*{Specification vs. Implementation}
% \underbar{\textit{Specification}} describes what a system ought to satisfy and perform. \textbf{A \textit{formal specification}}, in particular, \textbf{is a specification derived using formal methods that ensure the required properties of some problem at hand}. A formal specification of a distributed system often comes in (at least) 2 parts:

% \begin{enumerate}
%     \item \textbf{
%         \textit{Requirements} imposed on the system -- i.e., a list of properties that the system should satisfy (e.g., safety / liveness properties).
%         \label{def.spec.requirements}
%     }
%     \item \textbf{
%         \textit{Operations} of the system, which describes the behavior (i.e., satisfiability of predicates) given interactions (e.g., effects of communication).
%         \label{def.spec.operations}
%     }
% \end{enumerate}

% In total, a formal specification is then used to verify the following:

% \begin{enumerate}
%     \item {
%         Guarantee that a description of a system really meets the requirements of the same system -- i.e., the specification is correct.
%     }
%     \item \textbf{
%         Ensure that an \underbar{\textit{implementation}} satisfies the specification -- i.e., ensure that any correctness properties that hold for spec. also holds for impl.
%     }
% \end{enumerate}

\paragraph*{LTS and Process Graphs}
Both specifications and implementations could be represented by \underbar{\textit{models of concurrency}}, for example \textit{labelled transition systems (LTS)} or \textit{process graphs}.

\begin{definition}[Process Graph]
    A \textit{process graph} is a triple $(S, I, \rightarrowtriangle)$ such that:
    \begin{itemize}
        \item $S$ a set of states;
        \item $I \in S$ an \textit{initial state};
        \item {
            $\rightarrowtriangle$ a set of triples $(s, a, t)$ each describing a (named) relation $S \rightarrow S$:
            \begin{itemize}
                \item $s, t \in S$;
                \item $a \in {Act}$ -- a set of actions.
            \end{itemize}
        }
    \end{itemize}
    \label{def.process-graph}
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[LTS]
    Same as \hyperref[def.process-graph]{process graph}, except without an initial state. Sometimes used synonymously with process graphs bc. mathematicians are evil.
\end{definition}

Alternatively, one may use \textit{process algebraic expressions} to formally represent spec.s and impl.s, for example using \textit{CCS (Calculus of Communicating Systems)}, \textit{CSP (Communicating Sequential Processes)}, and \textit{ACP (Algebra of Communicating Processes)}. \underline{Each semantics is of different expressive power}.

\paragraph*{ACP}
Define the set of operations:
\begin{itemize}
    \item {
        $\varepsilon$ (successful termination -- $\mathrm{ACP}_{\varepsilon}$ extension).
    }
    \item {
        $\delta$ (deadlock).
    }
    \item {
        $a$ (action constant) for each action $a \in {Act}$.

        Each $a$ describe a \textbf{visible action} -- $\tau \notin {Act}$;
    }
    \item {
        $P \cdot Q$ (sequential composition between processes $P, Q$)
    }
    \item {
        $P + Q$ (summation / choice / alternative composition);
    }
    \item {
        $P || Q$ (parallel composition).
    }
    \item {
        ${\partial}_{H}(P)$ (restriction / encapsulation).

        Given set of (visible) actions $H$, this removes $\forall a \in H$ in $P$.

        Practically this is often used after defining $\gamma(a, b)$ to enforce sync -- via removing non-synced $a.b$ or $b.a$ behaviors;
    }
    \item {
        ${\tau}_{I}(P)$ (abstraction -- $\mathrm{ACP}_{\tau}$ extension).

        Given set of (visible) actions $I$, this converts $\forall a \in I$ into $\tau$ in $P$.

        A $\tau$ action is \textbf{non-observable} -- this will be significant for describing traces \& equivalence relations.
    }
    \item {
        $\gamma: A \times A \rightarrow A$ (partial communication function).

        For example, $\gamma(a, b)$ defines new (synchronized) visible action alongside $a, b$.
    }
\end{itemize}

We further define the following transition rules (omitting commutative equivalents). First, transition rules for basic process algebra wrt. termination, sequential composition, and choice:
\begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{ccc}
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \infer0{a \xrightarrow{a} \varepsilon}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   &
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} \varepsilon}
            \infer1{a + b \xrightarrow{a} \varepsilon}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   &
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} \varepsilon}
            \infer1{a \cdot b \xrightarrow{a} b}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   \\
        \\
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} a^{'}}
            \infer1{a + b \xrightarrow{a} a^{'}}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   &
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} a^{'}}
            \infer1{a \cdot b \xrightarrow{a} a^{'} \cdot b}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   &
            \\
    \end{tabular}
\end{center}

Then, for parallel processes which may or may not communicate: 
\begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{cc}
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} \varepsilon}
            \infer1{a || b \xrightarrow{a} b}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   &
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} a^{'}}
            \infer1{a || b \xrightarrow{a} a^{'} || b}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   \\
        \\
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} \varepsilon}
            \hypo{b \xrightarrow{b} \varepsilon}
            \infer2{a || b \xrightarrow{\gamma(a, b)} \varepsilon}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   &
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} a^{'}}
            \hypo{b \xrightarrow{b} \varepsilon}
            \infer2{a || b \xrightarrow{\gamma(a, b)} a^{'}}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   \\
        \\
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} \varepsilon}
            \hypo{b \xrightarrow{b} b^{'}}
            \infer2{a || b \xrightarrow{\gamma(a, b)} b^{'}}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   &
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{a} a^{'}}
            \hypo{b \xrightarrow{b} b^{'}}
            \infer2{a || b \xrightarrow{\gamma(a, b)} a^{'} || b^{'}}
        \end{prooftree}
        $   \\
    \end{tabular}
\end{center}

Furthermore, for encapsulation ${\partial}_H$: 
\begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{cc}
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{x} \varepsilon}
            \infer1{\partial_H(a) \xrightarrow{x} \varepsilon}
        \end{prooftree}\ 
        x \notin H
        $   &
        $
        \begin{prooftree}
            \hypo{a \xrightarrow{x} a^{'}}
            \infer1{{\partial}_H(a) \xrightarrow{x} {\partial}_H(a^{'})}
        \end{prooftree}\ 
        x \notin H
        $   \\
    \end{tabular}
\end{center}
This is to say, $\partial_H(a)$ can execute all transitions of $a$ that are also not in $H$.

Finally, deadlocks \textbf{does not display any behavior} -- that is, a $\delta$ process cannot transition to any other states no matter what (though obviously as a constituent part of e.g., a parallel process the other concurrent constituent can still run). 

\begin{background}[commutativity]
    \begin{equation*}
        f(a, b) = f(b, a) \iff f\ \mathrm{commutative}
    \end{equation*}
\end{background}

\begin{background}[associativity]
    \begin{equation*}
        (a \circ b) \circ c = a \circ (b \circ c) \iff \circ\ \mathrm{associative}
    \end{equation*}
\end{background}

\begin{background}[distributivity]
    \begin{equation*}
        f(x, a \circ b) = f(x, a) \circ f(x, b) \iff f\ \mathrm{distributes\ over}\ \circ
    \end{equation*}
\end{background}

\begin{background}[isomorphism]
    An isomorphism describes a \textbf{bijective} \textbf{homomorphism}: 
    \begin{itemize}
        \item {
            \textbf{Homomorphism} describes a \textbf{structure-preserving} map between two algebraic \textbf{structures} of the same \textbf{type}: 
            \begin{itemize}
                \item {
                    \textbf{Algebraic structure} describes a set with additional properties -- e.g., an additive group over $\mathbb{N}$, a ring of integers modulo $x$, etc. 
                }
                \item {
                    Two structures of the same \textbf{type} refers to structures with the same name -- e.g., two groups, two rings, etc. 
                }
                \item {
                    A \textbf{structure-preserving} map $f$ between two structures intuitively describes a structure such that, for properties $p \in X$, $q \in Y$ between same-type structures $X, Y$, any tuples $X^n \in p$ accepted by $p$ (e.g., $3 + 5 = 8 \implies (3, 5, 8) \in \mathbb{R}.(+)$) satisfies $\mathsf{map}(f, X^n) \in q$. 
                }
            \end{itemize}
        }
        \item {
            \textbf{Bijection} describes a 1-to-1 correspondence between elements of two sets -- i.e., invertible. 
        }
    \end{itemize}
\end{background}

\end{document}