Re: A question about structural congruence

[Joachim Parrow <joachim@xxxxxxxxx>]

Benyamin Aziz wrote:

> Does this mean that we can affirm the following statement?
> n \notin fn(P) & m \notin fn(Q)   ==>   P=Q

Sure, because n notin fn(P) implies (nu n)P = P.

>
> Whereas in any other case, nothing can be said about P and Q.

I'm not so sure - can you give an example to clarify? Structural congruence is
pretty strong, for example it leaves prefixes invariant, so (nu n)P = (nu m)Q at
the very least tells us that P and Q have the same prefixes.

Joachim

  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "models for mobility" mailing list     mailto:moca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 http://www-sop.inria.fr/mimosa/personnel/Davide.Sangiorgi/moca.html