Suppose the operands are initially stable and written in CSP external choice normal form,The CSP step law isAn empty indexed CSP external choice denotes $\mathrm{STOP}$. A label appearing in both of the first two lines must retain both continuations: after that common label the result is the CSP internal choice between the continuations. A label in $A$ appears only in the third line and only if both operands offer it. These are exactly the three visible-transition rules from part (d); the two CSP internal action rules handle operands that are not initially stable.

As a check, for the paper's example the initial shared $a$ leads to $J_{\{a\}}(b\to \mathrm{STOP},c\to \mathrm{STOP})$. Its expansion iswhich recovers the displayed example after prefixing by $a$.

Write $J_A(P,Q)=P{△}_{A}Q$. The following five CSP operational semantics rules suffice, with $a$ always visible:Thus a CSP internal action of either operand preserves the wrapper. A visible action outside $A$ by the left operand also preserves it, whereas such an action by the right operand performs an ordinary CSP interrupt and discards the left operand. An action in $A$ requires both operands and advances both without discarding either. If both can perform the same event outside $A$, there are two transitions with the same visible label and potentially different derivatives; neither should be deleted. The paper excludes successful termination, so no extra termination rules are needed.

If $f$ is injective, the equation is true:For a CSP event $a\in A$, the original CSP parallel composition permits $a$ exactly when both operands can perform $a$. After CSP event renaming, the corresponding rule requires the same image $f(a)$ in both operands. Injectivity ensures that matching images came from the same event, and that an event outside $A$ cannot acquire the image of one inside $A$. Independent transitions remain independent, and CSP internal actions are unchanged. Matching these transition rules gives a strong bisimulation, hence equality in all three standard CSP semantic models.

For a non-injective $f$, the equation need not hold. LetOn the left, both events require synchronization but the other operand offers the wrong event, so $P\underset{A}{\Vert }Q=\mathrm{STOP}$. On the right, both renamed operands offer $c$, which can synchronize:The failure is already visible in the CSP traces model. A particular non-injective CSP event renaming may still preserve a particular composition; it is the unrestricted equivalence that fails.

First define the ordinary unbounded FIFO buffer:Now use CSP internal choice to permit an immediate stop:An execution choosing the first branch can perform every legal CSP trace satisfying the prefix of a list condition in part (a). Conversely that condition excludes all other CSP traces, so no process satisfying it can have more CSP traces. The second branch adds no new CSP trace, since the empty CSP trace is already present.

The second branch does add the CSP stable failure $(⟨⟩,\{left.x\})$ for any $x\in T$. This violates mandatory input readiness. Therefore the process has the maximum possible CSP trace set and fails the CSP stable failure specification. The qualification is $T\ne \varnothing$, as is implicit for a useful FIFO buffer; with an empty value type there is no input-readiness event to violate. Maximizing the number of CSP traces does not pick a unique process in the finer models: other processes with the same complete legal CSP trace set and extra refusals also qualify.

For a finite CSP trace $s$, let $L(s)$ be its sequence of values on $left$ and $O(s)$ its sequence of values on $right$, with channel names removed. Restrict the external alphabet to these two channels. The behavioural CSP trace specification for an unbounded FIFO buffer iswhere $⪯$ means prefix of a list, not merely subsequence. Outputs must therefore occur in input order, cannot duplicate or invent values, and cannot precede their inputs. Applying the condition to every CSP trace also checks every execution prefix.

For a legal $s$, write $L(s)=O(s)⌢q(s)$, so $q(s)$ is the pending FIFO queue content. Define the events that must remain available byIn addition to the CSP trace condition, require the behavioural CSP stable failure conditionThus an unbounded FIFO buffer cannot stably refuse any new input, and a nonempty FIFO buffer cannot stably refuse its oldest pending output. An empty FIFO buffer can refuse every output. Readiness of an input and readiness of an output are required together; the environment may choose either. These conditions do not require an output while the environment refuses to accept it. In a CSP failures-divergences model specification, also exclude CSP divergence; the stable-readiness condition alone does not rule out an implementation that loops internally forever without reaching a CSP stable state.

The obstruction is that the property is about where a transition originates, whereas the three standard CSP semantic models identify processes that can disagree about this fact. Take fresh $h\ne a$ and compareIn $G$, the only $a$ transition leaves a CSP stable state, so the property holds. Initially $B$ has both an $a$ transition to $\mathrm{STOP}$ and a CSP internal action to $a\to \mathrm{STOP}$. Its initial state is therefore not a CSP stable state, and its direct $a$ transition violates the property.

Nevertheless both have exactly the CSP traces $⟨⟩$ and $⟨a⟩$. Initially their possible stable observations offer exactly $a$, so their initial CSP stable failures are precisely $(⟨⟩,X)$ with $a\notin X$. After $a$, both can refuse every CSP event. Neither has a CSP divergence: the hidden $h$ can occur at most once. ThereforeNo CSP refinement test in one of these models can separate semantically equal operands. This also rules out placing the operand in a fixed context of ordinary CSP operators before the test, since those operators respect the model's equality. A model recording more about the interleaving of stability and acceptance, or an additional operator that explicitly observes stability, would be needed.

Let $X=P{}_{\{a,b,d\}}{\Vert }_{\{a,b,c\}}Q$. In this CSP alphabetized parallel composition, $a,b$ require both participants, $d$ belongs only to the left participant and $c$ only to the right participant. Expand the reachable states using CSP prefixing and CSP external choice:For example, after the synchronized $b$, the left participant is back at $P$ but the right participant is at $c\to Q$. The left participant's proposed $a$ is blocked until the right participant has performed $c$. Similarly, after $a,d$, only the synchronized $b$ is possible. Thus there is no extra interleaving to include.

Eliminating $Y,W,Z$ gives the guarded equationConsequently choose the sequential CSP processThe unique fixed point principle first establishes $R=X$.

Now let $E=X{\Theta }_{\{c\}}X$. The CSP exception operator follows its left operand until that operand performs $c$, includes this $c$ in the visible behaviour, and then switches to its right operand. Applying its CSP step law to the four-state expansion yieldsThe switch occurs exactly where the ordinary execution already returns to $X$. Therefore $E=X=R$. The answer uses neither a CSP exception operator nor a CSP parallel composition operator, and the argument gives equality in all three standard CSP semantic models.

Take a fresh CSP event $h$ and defineThe apparent guard is removed by CSP hiding. Each unfolding can perform a CSP internal action and return to the same situation without any visible CSP event. Operationally this is an infinite internal loop, a CSP divergence, so the equation is not a guarded recursion. This is precisely why a syntactic test that counts every occurrence of $\to$ would be wrong.

The unique fixed point principle says that a suitably guarded recursion has a unique solution in the chosen CSP semantic model. In particular, for a guarded process expression $F(X)$,The same principle applies to a mutually recursive system: two tuples satisfying the same guarded equations are componentwise equal. Thus an algebraic proof may show that a candidate satisfies the defining equations, instead of comparing arbitrarily long executions individually.

A guarded recursion must make visible progress before re-entering its recursive dependency. For an equation built from CSP prefixing and CSP choice, the usual sufficient condition is that every recursive occurrence lies behind a visible CSP prefixing operation. For mutually recursive equations, every dependency cycle must pass such a guard. The guard must survive enclosing operators: an event subsequently removed by CSP hiding does not provide visible progress. Equivalently, in the usual semantic formulation the recursion functional must be contractive in observable depth. Merely seeing an arrow somewhere before the variable is insufficient.

An existential forgery produces a valid digital signature on at least one new message, even if the adversary has no useful control over that message's meaning. A universal forgery gives a way to forge a digital signature on an arbitrary specified message. Recovering the private key suffices for a universal forgery, but is not required if another general signing method exists.

In a key-only signature attack, the adversary knows the verification public key and the public scheme. In a known-message signature attack, it additionally obtains valid message–digital signature pairs whose messages it did not choose. In a chosen-message signature attack, it can ask for digital signatures on messages it chooses, possibly adaptively. Its final forged message must not be one of the messages already submitted for signing; otherwise simply returning a supplied pair would count as a forgery.