Errata
Position |
Correction |
Thanks to |
| p.ii, +3 | Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, 1999. | J.W. Klop |
| p.iii, +6 | op gezag van de rector magnificus | T.C. Ruys |
| p.viii, +1 | In this respect, Mariëlle Stoelinga is also acknowledged. | T.C. Ruys |
| p.21, +19 |
(By `` |
|
| p.44, Def. 4.16 |
A symbolic bisimulation |
Wang Yi |
| p.52, Table 5.1 (caption) |
Table 5.1: Free 
|
|
| p.58, +3 | More generally, using induction on the size of p, we prove that ... | |
| p.58, +9 |
..., and 
|
|
| p.59, +4 | ..., and for every n >= 0, whenever | |
| p.112, -8 |  |
|
| p.113, Def. 9.1 . . . |
SA = (S, A, C, -->, k) [Also in p.115 (+3, and Def. 9.5), and p.117 (Def. 9.7)] |
G.G. Infante López |
| p.119, +14 | For our purposes, the simpler Definition 9.10 is sufficient. | |
| p.122, -10 to -4 |
The defintition of symbolic bisimilarity is incorrect. The following has appeared in the dissertation: |
|
|
||
|
Conditions (a), (b), and (c) happen to be too weak. They should be replaced by the following sole condition. |
||
|
||
|
Though the change is considerable, results on the thesis are not affected. Proofs of Therorems 9.17 and 9.19 (p.124) can be easily adjusted to the new definition. Theorem 9.20 (p.124) is the one that reveals the error. It actually does not hold with the old (incorrect) defintion. The proof is given in Appendix E.2, p.258, -7. Now it should say: Proof. The proof follows from Lemma E.2. It only remains to notice that SR satisfy condition (*) in Defintion 9.16 (see (*) above), then any v1=v2 satisfies conditions in (E.4). Notice that Lemma E.2 is not affected. Like Therorems 9.17 and 9.19, Theorems 10.17 and 10.18 (p.145) hold under both definitions (the correct and incorrect ones). Proofs, which are given in Appendix F.1 (pp. 274, 275), remain unchanged. Similarly, Theorem 11.12 (p.158) also holds for the new defintion. Its proof given in Appendix G.1 remains unchanged. |
||
| p.125, Fig. 9.4 bottom, right |
Provided Fx(0)=0 | |
| p.127, +13 | ... indicates the number of jobs in the system | |
| p.137, Table 10.1 (caption) |
Table 10.1: Free 
|
|
| p.142, +5 |
... is finite. should also be finite. Note that it is in fact impossible to generate a set C which is infinite. A candidate process would be X(n) = X(n+1) ||_{a} {xn}->a;0. Nevertheless, it would require an infinite proof tree to derive X(0) --a,C-> 0 with C = {xn|n>=0}. |
|
| p.145, +2 | ..., and for every n >= 0, whenever | |
| p.154, +13 | ... is a basic term for any C ∈ Pfin(C) | |
| p.243, -3 | The support set of a probability measure is the smallest closed subset of the sample space whose measure is 1. | |
| p.331, left, +21 | symbolic, 44, 121 | |
Annotations
| Bold text | Inserted or modified text (it should be there) |
| Misplaced text (it should not be there) | |
| Red paragraph | A remark clarifying the correction |