English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Consider a process M implemented as a collection of subprocesses SMi. To certify the implementation to be correct, the collective behaviors of SMi and the behavior of M are compared using a suitable verification criterion. In many approaches the implementation is specified structurally using operators such as , hiding, and renaming while M is specified behaviorally using action prefixing and choice operators. This style is being used for hardware specification also [10, 8, 4, 3]. In this paper we address the question whether behavioral specifications can be deduced rapidly from structural specifications in the setting of a simple language HOP. We also address the question of doing the same for geometrically regular (array) structures that abound in VLSI. We present two algorithms PARCOMP, and PARCOMP-DC, report their performance, and explain the heuristics used to make them efficient.

Parallel composition of lockstep synchronous processes for hardware validation: Divide-and-conquer composition