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

A system of communicating finite state machines is synchronizable [1, 4] if its send trace semantics, i.e. the set of sequences of sendings it can perform, is the same when its communications are FIFO asynchronous and when they are just rendezvous synchronizations. This property was claimed to be decidable in several conference and journal papers [1, 4, 3, 2] for either mailboxes (*-1) or peer-to-peer (1-1) communications, thanks to a form of small model property. In this paper, we show that this small model property does not hold neither for mailbox communications, nor for peer-to-peer communications, therefore the decidability of synchronizability becomes an open question. We close this question for peer-to-peer communications, and we show that syn-chronizability is actually undecidable. We show that synchronizability is decidable if the topology of communications is an oriented ring. We also show that, in this case, synchronizability implies the absence of unspecified receptions and orphan messages, and the channel-recognizability of the reachability set.

Synchronizability of Communicating Finite State Machines is not Decidable.