Theory Conclusion
chapter ‹ Conclusion›
theory Conclusion
imports OpSemFD OpSemDT OpSemFDBis OpSemDTBis OpSemFBis OpSemTBis NewLaws
begin
text ‹We started by defining the operators \<^const>‹Sliding›, \<^const>‹Throw› and \<^const>‹Interrupt›
and provided on them several new laws, especially monotony, "step-law"
(behaviour with @{term [source] ‹□a ∈ A → P a›}) and continuity.›
text ‹We defined the \<^const>‹ready_set› notion, and described its behaviour with the reference
processes and the operators of CSP (which is already a minor contribution).›
text ‹As main contribution, we defined the @{const [source] ‹After›} operator which represents
a bridge between the denotational and the versions of operational semantics for CSP.
Therefore we derive the correspondence between denotational and operational
semantics by construction. Based on failure divergence or trace divergence refinements,
the two operational semantics correspond to the versions described in
\<^cite>‹"roscoe:csp:1998" and "DBLP:journals/entcs/Roscoe15"›.
We only have a slight variation for the \<^const>‹Sync› operator: \<^const>‹STOP› is replaced
by \<^const>‹SKIP›, probably because of the operator definition in \<^session>‹HOL-CSP›.
Thus, we provided a formal theory of operational behaviour for CSP, which is, to our
knowledge, done for the first time for the entire language and the complete FD-Semantics
model. Some of the proofs turned out to be extremely complex and out of reach of
paper-and-pencil reasoning.›
text ‹A notable point is that the experimental order \<^term>‹(⊑⇩D⇩T)› behaves surprisingly well:
initially pushed in \<^session>‹HOL-CSP› for pure curiosity, it looks promising for future
applications, since it gives a direct handle for an operational trace semantics for
non-diverging processes which is executable.›
text ‹Another take-away is the development of alternatives allowing \<^term>‹(⊑⇩F)› and
\<^term>‹(⊑⇩T)› orders to be used operational construction by modifying the definition of
@{const [source] ‹AfterExt.AfterExt›}.
But even if \<^term>‹(⊑⇩F⇩D)› and \<^term>‹(⊑⇩D⇩T)› constructions are (almost) not impacted by this
change, this remains a bit disappointing because the monotony of \<^term>‹(⊑⇩F)› and
\<^term>‹(⊑⇩T)› w.r.t. to some operators does not allow to recover all the laws of
\<^cite>‹"roscoe:csp:1998" and "DBLP:journals/entcs/Roscoe15"›.›
text ‹As a bonus we provided in \<^theory>‹HOL-CSP_OpSem.NewLaws› some powerful laws for CSP.
Here, we recall only the most important ones:
@{thm [eta_contract = false] bij_Renaming_Hiding bij_Renaming_Sync Hiding_Mprefix_non_disjoint}›
end