Timeline for Behaviour of Labelled Markov Processes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2013 at 10:09 | comment | added | SBF | That's exactly my question. I think, it would be natural to define the trace equivalence of LMP in an equivalent way as it is done for PA (we can't really say in the same way since some measurability issues have to be addressed). However, as I mentioned in my comment to @Markus, I am not sure whether this is an intended way to define traces of LMP. That's why in my question I said that I am interested in a source that explicitly defines the behavior of LMP. | |
| Apr 1, 2013 at 8:42 | comment | added | Vijay D | I am confused. Doesn't the definition of trace equivalence follow the same construction as for probabilistic automata? | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 15:40 | comment | added | SBF | That's indeed an interesting point to think about bisimulations as a hint for a possible definition of an LMP. However, to say that Bisimulation is stronger than trace equivalence for LMP, don't we have to define the trace equivalence for LMP first? Otherwise, we seem to discuss the equivalence of models (as tuples, using bisimulation) without saying what do these models mean exactly. | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 16:53 | history | answered | Vijay D | CC BY-SA 3.0 |