Symmetric electoral systems for ambient calculi

Musings on Encodings and Expressiveness

“…In the last few years, a great number of encodability and separation results have appeared, comparing CCS, Mobile Ambients, and several versions of the π-calculus (with and without recursion; with mixed choice, separated choice or asynchronous) [6,26,28,33,16,15,10,11,14,30,3,4,32,27,31,37,13,43,12,21,34,38,42,36,35]; see [19,20] for an overview. Many of these results employ different and somewhat ad-hoc criteria on what constitutes a valid encoding, and thus are hard to compare with each other.…”

“…As a concluding remark, many separation results in the literature [14,30,31,37,38,21] are based on the assumption that parallel composition translates homomorphically, i.e. T (E|F) = T (E)|T (F).…”

A criterion for separating process calculi

“…Among these results, the authors prove that match and polyadic synchronization cannot be encoded in π-calculus, which are similar to the separation results we present in Section 4. Distribution preservation is also required for the encodings considered in [30], where expressiveness of different variants of Ambient calculus is analysed, and in [33], where an extension of the π-calculus with both polyadic synchronization and priority is introduced and used as target of some 'reasonable' encodings of some bio-inspired process calculi.…”

On the validity of encodings of the synchronous in the asynchronous π -calculus

“…To order these calculi w.r.t. expressiveness, encodings between them have been studied [50,48,51,20,5,39,35,36,34,14,47,9,13,2,38,37,45,12,53,11,25,46,52,26,42]. Process calculus L 1 is said to be at least as expressive as process calculus L 2 iff there exists a valid encoding from L 1 into L 2 .…”