Rewriting logic is naturally concurrent: several subterms of the state term can be rewritten simultaneously. But state terms are global, which makes compositionality difficult to achieve. Compositionality here means being able to decompose a complex system into its functional components and code each as an isolated and encapsulated system. Our goal is to help bringing compositionality to system specification in rewriting logic. The base of our proposal is the operation that we call synchronous composition. We discuss the motivations and implications of our proposal, formalize it for rewriting logic and also for transition structures, to be used as semantics, and show the power of our approach with some examples. This paper is under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
The best move towards egalitarianism we know of is the temporal logic of rewriting, TLR* (which was an inspiration for the present work). The explanations and examples in @cite_25 are good arguments for an egalitarian view. Consider this formula to express fairness in the execution of a rule with label @math : @math . The proposition @math is on states: it means that the current state of the system admits the rule @math to be applied to it. But @math is on transitions: it means that a transition is being executed according to rule @math . The simplicity of the formula is only possible by being egalitarian.
@cite_25
1986424898 1577069963 2127508398 1599831144
This paper presents the linear temporal logic of rewriting (LTLR) model checker under localized fairness assumptions for the Maude system. The linear temporal logic of rewriting extends linear temporal logic (LTL) with spatial action patterns that describe patterns of rewriting events. Since LTLR generalizes and extends various state-based and event-based logics, mixed properties involving both state propositions and actions, such as fairness properties, can be naturally expressed in LTLR. However, often the needed fairness assumptions cannot even be expressed as propositional temporal logic formulas because they are parametric, that is, they correspond to universally quantified temporal logic formulas. Such universal quantification is succinctly captured by the notion of localized fairness; for example, fairness is localized to the object name parameter in object fairness conditions. We summarize the foundations, and present the language design and implementation of the Maude Fair LTLR model checker, developed at the C++ level within the Maude system by extending the existing Maude LTL model checker. Our tool provides not only an efficient LTLR model checking algorithm under parameterized fairness assumptions but also suitable specification languages as part of its user interface. The expressiveness and effectiveness of the Maude Fair LTLR model checker are illustrated by five case studies. This is the first tool we are aware of that can model check temporal logic properties under parameterized fairness assumptions. We develop the LTLR model checker under localized fairness assumptions.The linear temporal logic of rewriting (LTLR) extends LTL with action patterns.Localized fairness specifies parameterized fairness over generic system entities.We present the foundations, the language design, and the implementation of our tool.We illustrate the expressiveness and effectiveness of our tool with case studies. The concept of fair division is as old as civil society itself. Aristotle's "equal treatment of equals" was the first step toward a formal definition of distributive fairness. The concept of collective welfare, more than two centuries old, is a pillar of modern economic analysis. Reflecting fifty years of research, this book examines the contribution of modern microeconomic thinking to distributive justice. Taking the modern axiomatic approach, it compares normative arguments of distributive justice and their relation to efficiency and collective welfare. The book begins with the epistemological status of the axiomatic approach and the four classic principles of distributive justice: compensation, reward, exogenous rights, and fitness. It then presents the simple ideas of equal gains, equal losses, and proportional gains and losses. The book discusses three cardinal interpretations of collective welfare: Bentham's "utilitarian" proposal to maximize the sum of individual utilities, the Nash product, and the egalitarian leximin ordering. It also discusses the two main ordinal definitions of collective welfare: the majority relation and the Borda scoring method. The Shapley value is the single most important contribution of game theory to distributive justice. A formula to divide jointly produced costs or benefits fairly, it is especially useful when the pattern of externalities renders useless the simple ideas of equality and proportionality. The book ends with two versatile methods for dividing commodities efficiently and fairly when only ordinal preferences matter: competitive equilibrium with equal incomes and egalitarian equivalence. The book contains a wealth of empirical examples and exercises. We consider a task of scheduling with a common deadline on a single machine. Every player reports to a scheduler the length of his job and the scheduler needs to finish as many jobs as possible by the deadline. For this simple problem, there is a truthful mechanism that achieves maximum welfare in dominant strategies. The new aspect of our work is that in our setting players are uncertain about their own job lengths, and hence are incapable of providing truthful reports (in the strict sense of the word). For a probabilistic model for uncertainty we show that even with relatively little uncertainty, no mechanism can guarantee a constant fraction of the maximum welfare. To remedy this situation, we introduce a new measure of economic efficiency, based on a notion of a fair share of a player, and design mechanisms that are Ω(1)-fair. In addition to its intrinsic appeal, our notion of fairness implies good approximation of maximum welfare in several cases of interest. In our mechanisms the machine is sometimes left idle even though there are jobs that want to use it. We show that this unfavorable aspect is unavoidable, unless one gives up other favorable aspects (e.g., give up Ω(1)-fairness). We also consider a qualitative approach to uncertainty as an alternative to the probabilistic quantitative model. In the qualitative approach we break away from solution concepts such as dominant strategies (they are no longer well defined), and instead suggest an axiomatic approach, which amounts to listing desirable properties for mechanisms. We provide a mechanism that satisfies these properties. This paper presents the temporal logic of rewriting @math . Syntactically, @math is a very simple extension of @math which just adds action atoms, in the form of spatial action patterns, to @math . Semantically and pragmatically, however, when used together with rewriting logic as a "tandem" of system specification and property specification logics, it has substantially more expressive power than purely state-based logics like @math , or purely action-based logics like A- @math . Furthermore, it avoids the system property mismatch problem experienced in state-based or action-based logics, which makes many useful properties inexpressible in those frameworks without unnatural changes to a system's specification. The advantages in expresiveness of @math are gained without losing the ability to use existing tools and algorithms to model check its properties: a faithful translation of models and formulas is given that allows verifying @math properties with @math model checkers.