If is injective, the equation is true:
For a CSP event , the original CSP parallel composition permits exactly when both operands can perform . After CSP event renaming, the corresponding rule requires the same image in both operands. Injectivity ensures that matching images came from the same event, and that an event outside cannot acquire the image of one inside . 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 , the equation need not hold. Let
On the left, both events require synchronization but the other operand offers the wrong event, so . On the right, both renamed operands offer , 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.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.