ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A lattice-theoretic characterization of safety and liveness
Full text PdfPdf (778 KB)
Source Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing archive
Proceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on Principles of distributed computing table of contents
Boston, Massachusetts
Pages: 325 - 333  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISBN:1-58113-708-7
Authors
Panagiotis Manolios  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
Richard Trefler  University of Waterloo 200 Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Sponsors
SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 35,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/872035.872083
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The distinction between safety and liveness properties is due to Lamport who gave the following informal characterization. Safety properties assert that nothing bad ever happens while liveness properties assert that something good happens eventually. In a well-known paper Alpern and Schneider gave a topological characterization of safety and liveness for the linear time framework. Gumm has stated these notions in the more abstract setting of V-complete Boolean algebras. Recently, we characterized safety and liveness for the branching time framework and found that neither the topological characterization nor Gumm's characterization were general enough for our needs. We present a lattice theoretic characterization that allows us to unify previous results on safety and liveness, including the results for the linear time and branching time frameworks and for w-regular string and tree languages.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
B. Alpern and F. B. Schneider. Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters, 21(4):181--185, Oct. 1985.
 
4
B. Alpern and F. B. Schneider. Recognizing safety and liveness. Distributed Computing, 2(3):117--126, 1987.
 
5
 
6
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
E. Kindler. Safety and liveness properties: A survey. EATCS-BuUetin, 53:268--272, June 1994.
 
11
D. Kozen. Results on the propositional Mu-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, pages 334--354, December 1983.
 
12
 
13
L. Lamport. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-3, 2:125--143, Mar. 1977.
 
14
 
15
16
 
17
A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 46--57, Providence, Rhode Island, 1977. IEEE.
 
18
 
19
20
 
21
A. P. Sistla. Safety, liveness and fairness in temporal logic. Formal Aspects of Computing, 6:495--511, 1994.
 
22
W. Thomas. Automata on infinite objects. In van Leeuwen {23}, pages 135--192.
 
23


Collaborative Colleagues:
Panagiotis Manolios: colleagues
Richard Trefler: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: