Geometric models
Cartesian product

$Graph$ is cartesian, as it is the presheaf category $Set^{𝒞^{op}}$ where $𝒞$ is the category having two objects and two (non trivial) morphisms in between.

In $Top$, the topology of $X × Y$ is the coarsest (with the fewer open sets) topology such that the projections $π_X$ and $π_Y$ are continuous (i.e. the topology whose basis are products of open sets).

In the category of pospaces $PoSp$: the order on $X × Y$ is the largest one (equality = smallest) making the projections morphisms.
\sqsubseteq_{X×Y} \; ≝ \; \sqsubseteq_{X} × \sqsubseteq_{Y}is closed since it’s a product of closed sets (and the swapping of two coordinates is continuous).

What about local pospaces $LPo$? The order on $U × V$ with $U ∈ 𝒰, V ∈ 𝒱$ is
(U × V, \sqsubseteq_U × \sqsubseteq_V)the product of the pospaces $(U, ≤_U) × (V, ≤_V)$ provides an ordered atlas on $X × Y$

Category of metric spaces and isometries: $Met_{emb}$? We have a problem! The projections must be embeddings, hence injective! This category is not cartesian.

Category of metric spaces and contractions $Met_{ctr}$? It is cartesian, with
d((x,x'), (y, y')) = \max \lbrace d_X(x, x'), d_Y(y, y')\rbrace 
Category of metric spaces and continuous maps $Met_{top}$? You can take any distance giving you the product toplogy (e.g. the Euclidean/$L_2$ distance).
Infinite products of directed circles does not exists in $Lpo$. If it existed, the underlying topological space should be the infinite torus.
$𝕊^1$: circle
Basis of this topology:
but when you have the full circle: impossible to put an order! Other way to see it: in the infinite torus, every point is a vortex ⟹ cannot be a local pospace.
So $Lpo$ is too restricted to do algebraic topology.
Geometric model
For a process
one constructs a local pospace (geometric realization)
One gets the geometric model by removing the blocks $B_p$ such that $p$ is forbidden.
Reminder: Discrete path: a sequence of points $p_1, …, p_q$ st to go from $p_i$ to $p_{i+1}$, either you leave points to go on arrows, or you leave arrows to go on their target point.
Directed homotopy
 $h$ is a homotopy
 for all $s ∈ [0, r]$, h(s, ): [0, q] ⟶ X is a local pospace morphism
 Stronger than the previous point: $h$ induces a local pospace morphism
NB:
 Just the 1. and 2.: it’s called a weakly directed homotopy

if $h$ is a directed homotopy, the reverse $(t, s) ⟼ h(t,qs)$ is not, a priori, a directed homotopy
 Counterexample: there exist weakly directed homotopies that are not directed homotopies: cf. picture
The relation
is a preorder. Associated congruence:
 Elementary directed homotopy:

Finite concatenation of directed homotopies going back and forth. Two paths that have a elementary directed homotopy between them are said to be dihomotopic.
 $\sim_h$: homotopic
 $\sim_d$: dihomotopic
 $\sim_w$: weakly dihomotopic
Reparametrization
 Reparametrization:

a increasing and surjective map θ: [0, r] ⟶[0, r]
NB: Increasing and surjective ⟹ continuous
Any directed path is dihomotopic to any reparametrization thereof: if $γ: [0, r] ⟶ X$,
More generally: if $h: [0, r] × [0, q] ⟶ [0, r]$ is a directed homotopy from $θ: [0, r] ⟶ [0, r]$ to $θ’: [0, r] ⟶ [0, r]$, then $γ \circ θ$ and $γ \circ θ’$ are homotopic.
(cf. picture ⟶ 2categorical)
Peano curve
$γ: [0, 1] ⟶ [0, 1]^2$ continuous and surjective (onto). It is not bijective (otherwise $[0,1]$ and $[0, 1]^2$ would be homeomorphic)
If $X$ is a geometric model of a conservative program with mutex (mutual exclusion: semaphor of arity $1$) only (e.g.: not a cube (semaphors of arity 2), for example a cross (three instances of a mutex)).
Given two directed paths on $X$, say $γ, δ$ such that $γ(0) = δ(0)$ and $γ(r) = δ(r)$:
$γ$ and $δ$ are dihomotopic iff $γ$ and $δ$ are homotopic.
(cf. pictures)
Compatible programs
Parallel composition:
Defined only if their initial valuations and their arity maps coincide ⟺ compatible.
Syntactical Independence
 Syntactically independent:

no variables, semaphores, barriers in common
NB:
 Syntactically independence (s.i.):
 implies compatibility
 can be checked statistically
 compositional: pairwise s.i. ⟹ mutually s.i.
Syntactically independence: too strong ⟶ $P$ and $Q$ could share a resource with no problem in some cases (ex: a semaphor of arity $2$).
Model Independence
Ex:
sem 1 a,b
sem 2 c
∏_1 = Pa Pc Vc Va  Pa Pc Vc Va
∏_2 = Pb Pc Vc Vb  Pb Pc Vc Vb
One resource of $c$ held by both program at a given time (since sem 1 a,b
and Pa
, Pb
just before Pc
), so $c$ should not appear in the geometric model.
Model indpendence:
NB: It can be checked statistically.
Syntactic independence ⟹ Model independence ⟹ Observational independence
Isothetic regions
Let $\Pi = (P_1, …, P_n)$ made up of P,V
processes.
The set
is a sub Boolean algebra (stable under ) of $𝒫(ℝ)$.
And let $(C_n)$ be an increasing sequence of cubes:
The increasing union remains a cube, the limit is defined componentwise:
Because connected subsets are stable under product and increasing union.
We will do the same by replacing $ℝ$ by the geometric realization $\vert G \vert$, where $G$ is finite.
The fact that $G$ is finite is crucial: consider a star with infinitely many branches and remove the center point: the complement is no longer a finite union (not stable under complement).
But finiteness is not necessary for all that: consider the infinite chain (it works, similarly to $ℝ$).
Galois connection
Ex:
And conversely, by taking the smallest interval containing it:
Besides:
Leave a comment