Denotational Semantics of The Actor Model - Actor Fixed Point Semantics

Actor Fixed Point Semantics

The denotational theory of computational system semantics is concerned with finding mathematical objects that represent what systems do. Collections of such objects are called domains. The Actor uses the domain of event diagram scenarios. It is usual to assume some properties of the domain, such as the existence of limits of chains (see cpo) and a bottom element. Various additional properties are often reasonable and helpful: the article on domain theory has more details.

A domain is typically a partial order, which can be understood as an order of definedness. For instance, given event diagram scenarios x and y, one might let "x≤y" mean that "y extends the computations x".

The mathematical denotation denoted by a system S is found by constructing increasingly better approximations from an initial empty denotation called S using some denotation approximating function progressionS to construct a denotation (meaning ) for S as follows:

DenoteS ≡ ⊔i∈ω progressionSi(⊥S).

It would be expected that progressionS would be monotone, i.e., if x≤y then progressionS(x)≤progressionS(y). More generally, we would expect that

If ∀i∈ω xi≤xi+1, then progressionS(⊔i∈ω xi) = ⊔i∈ω progressionS(xi)

This last stated property of progressionS is called ω-continuity.

A central question of denotational semantics is to characterize when it is possible to create denotations (meanings) according to the equation for DenoteS. A fundamental theorem of computational domain theory is that if progressionS is ω-continuous then DenoteS will exist.

It follows from the ω-continuity of progressionS that

progressionS(DenoteS) = DenoteS

The above equation motivates the terminology that DenoteS is a fixed point of progressionS.

Furthermore this fixed point is least among all fixed points of progressionS.

Read more about this topic:  Denotational Semantics Of The Actor Model

Famous quotes containing the words actor, fixed and/or point:

    While we look to the dramatist to give romance to realism, we ask of the actor to give realism to romance.
    Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)

    Our live experiences, fixed in aphorisms, stiffen into cold epigrams. Our heart’s blood, as we write it, turns to mere dull ink.
    —F.H. (Francis Herbert)

    ... there is no point in being realistic about here and now, no use at all not any, and so it is not the nineteenth but the twentieth century, there is no realism now, life is not real it is not earnest, it is strange which is an entirely different matter.
    Gertrude Stein (1874–1946)