Channel system (computer science): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:25, 9 June 2020

Latest revision as of 02:46, 26 December 2024

(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{redirect|Channel system|Earth's sea floor|Abyssal channel}}

{{short description|Finite-state machine with fifo buffers for memory}}

In [[computer science]], a '''channel system''' is a [[finite -state machine]] similar to [[communicating finite-state machine]] in which there is a single system communicating with itself instead of many systems communicating with each other. A '''channel system''' is similar to a [[pushdown automaton]] where a queue is used instead of a stack. Those queues are called '''channels'''. Intuitively, each channel represents a sequence a message to be sent, and to be read in the order in which they are sent.

== Definition ==

=== Channel system ===

Formally, a '''channel system''' (or '''perfect channel system''') <math>S</math> is defined as a tuple <math>\langle Q,C,\Sigma,\Delta \rangle</math> with:

* <math>Q=\{q_1,\dots,q_m\}</math> a finite set of '''control states''',

* <math>q_0\in Q</math> an '''initial state''',

* <math>A</math> a finite alphabet (for the sake of notation simplicity, let <math>\epsilon \in A</math>),

* <math>C=\{c_1,\dots,c_n\}</math> a finite set of '''channels''',

* <math>\Sigma=\{a_1,\dots,a_p\}</math> a finite alphabet of '''messages''',

* <math>\Delta\subseteq Q\times C\times\{?,!\}\times\Sigma^*\times (A\cup\{\epsilon\}) \times Q</math> a finite set of transition rules with <math>\Sigma^*</math> being the set of finite (potentially empty) words over the alphabet <math>\Sigma</math>.<ref name="decidable">{{cite journal |last1=Abdulla |first1=Parosh Aziz |last2=Jonsson|first2=Bengt|title=Verifying Programs with Unreliable Channels|journal =Information and Computation |year=1996 |volume=127 |issue=2 |pages=91–101 |doi=10.1006/inco.1996.0053|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Depending ofon the author, a '''channel system''' may have no initial state and may have an empty alphabet.<ref name="Nonprimitive recursive">{{cite journal |last1=Schnoebelen |first1=Ph |title=Verifying Lossy Channel Systems has Nonprimitive Recursive Complexity |journal =Information Processing Letters |date=15 September 2002 |volume=83 |issue=5 |pages=251–261 |doi=10.1016/S0020-0190(01)00337-4}}</ref>

=== Configuration ===

Line 38 ⟶ 39:

== Channel system and Turing machine ==

Most problem related to perfect channel system are undecidable{{r|decidable|p=92}}.<ref name="easier">{{cite journal |last1=Cécé |first1=Gérard|last2=Finkel|first2=Alain |title=Unreliable Channels Are Easier to Verify Than Perfect Channels|journal =Information and Computation |date=10 January 1996 |volume=124 |issue=1 |pages=20–31 |doi=10.1006/inco.1996.0003|doi-access=free }}</ref>{{rp|22}} This is due to the fact that such a machine may simulates the run of a [[Turing machine]]. This simulation is now sketched.

Given a [[Turing machine]] <math>M</math>, there exists a perfect channel system <math>S</math> such that any run of <math>M</math> of length <math>n</math> can be simulated by a run of <math>S</math> of length <math>O(n^2)</math>. Intuitively, this simulation consists simply in having the entire tape of the simulated Turing machine in a channel. The content channel is then entirely read and immediately rewritten in the channel, with one exception, the part of the content representing the head of the Turing machine is changed, to simulate a step of the Turing machine computation.

Line 49 ⟶ 50:

=== Counter machine ===

When the alphabet of a channel system contains a single message, then each channel is essentially a counter. It follows that those systems are essentially [[Minsky machine]]s. We call such systems '''counter machines'''. This same definition applies for all variants of channel system.<ref name="Counter">{{cite journal|first1=Richard|last1=Mayr|doi=10.1016/S0304-3975(02)00646-1|title=Undecidable problems in unreliable computations|volume=297|issue=1–3|date = 17 March 2008 |pages=337–354|journal=Theoretical Computer Science|doi-access=free}}</ref>{{rp|337}}

=== Completely specified protocol ===

Line 112 ⟶ 113:

=== Model checking problem ===

The '''model checking problem''' consists in deciding whether given a system <math>S</math> and a [[CTL*]]*-formula or a [[Linear temporal logic|LTL]]-formula <math>\phi</math> or a whether the language defined by <math>S</math> satisfies <math>\phi</math>. This problem is undecidable over lossy channel system.{{r|easier|p=23}}<ref name="Undecidable over unreliable channels">{{cite journal |last1=Abdulla |first1=Parosh Aziz|last2=Jonsson|first2=Bengt |title=Undecidable Verification Problems for Programs with Unreliable Channels|journal = Information and Computation |date= 10 October 1996 |volume=130 |issue=1 |pages=71–90 |doi=10.1006/inco.1996.0083|doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Recurrent state problem ===

The '''recurrent state problem''' consists in deciding, given a channel system <math>S</math> and an initial configuration <math>\gamma</math> and a state <math>s</math> whether there exists a run of <math>S</math>, starting at <math>\gamma</math>, going infinitely often through state <math>s</math>. This problem is undecidable over lossy channel system, even with a single channel.{{r|easier|p=23}}{{r|Undecidable over unreliable channels|p=80}}

=== Equivalent finite -state machine ===

Given a system <math>S</math>, there is no algorithm which computes a [[finite -state machine]] representing <math>R(S)</math> for the class of lossy channel system.{{r|easier|p=24}} This problem is decidable over machine capable of insertion of error .{{r|easier|p=26}}

=== Boundedness problem ===

Line 134 ⟶ 135:

==Communicating Hierarchical State Machine==

Hierarchical state machines are finite -state machines whose states themselves can be other machines. Since a communicating finite -state machine is characterized by concurrency, the most notable trait in a '''communicating hierarchical state machine''' is the coexistence of hierarchy and concurrency. This had been considered highly suitable as it signifies stronger interaction inside the machine.

However, it was proved that the coexistence of hierarchy and concurrency intrinsically costs language inclusion, language equivalence, and all of universality.<ref>Alur, Rajeev; Kannan, Sampath; Yannakakis, Mihalis. "Communicating hierarchical state machines," Automata, Languages and Programming. Prague: ICALP, 1999</ref>