On Two- and Three-valued Semantics for Impure Simplicial Complexes
Hans van Ditmarsch, Roman Kuznets, Rojo Randrianomentsoa

TL;DR
This paper compares two- and three-valued semantics for impure simplicial complexes, categorizes different approaches, and introduces a translation bridging the two, clarifying fundamental modeling differences in topological semantics.
Contribution
It identifies the key distinction between two- and three-valued semantics and provides a novel translation from three- to two-valued semantics, clarifying their differences.
Findings
Main distinction is the number of truth values used.
A translation from three-valued to two-valued semantics is introduced.
Pure complexes are characterized as invariant under the translation.
Abstract
Simplicial complexes are a convenient semantic primitive to reason about processes (agents) communicating with each other in synchronous and asynchronous computation. Impure simplicial complexes distinguish active processes from crashed ones, in other words, agents that are alive from agents that are dead. In order to rule out that dead agents reason about themselves and about other agents, three-valued epistemic semantics have been proposed where, in addition to the usual values true and false, the third value stands for undefined: the knowledge of dead agents is undefined and so are the propositional variables describing their local state. Other semantics for impure complexes are two-valued where a dead agent knows everything. Different choices in designing a semantics produce different three-valued semantics, and also different two-valued semantics. In this work, we categorize the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
