
size of the system with the control component and n users without symmetry reduction.
| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| size of the system with n users | 23 | 60 | 144 | 332 | 748 | 1 660 | 3 644 | 7 932 |
- information involving verification of the reachability properties on the model.
| l | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutoff | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
- The following table describes all reachable states in the system with any number of clients. For example
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9 || * - 1 * - - - - - - -
describes that if the control component is in the state 9 then it is possible that an arbitrary number of users are in the local states 1, 4 (symbol "*"), no user is in the states 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (symbol "-"), and exactly one user is in the state 3 (symbol "1").
- The (l+1)-tuples after each line denotes all unreachable (l+1)-tuples which do not contain an unreachable i+1-tuple for some i < l. An interesting fact is that such tuples are only 1+1-tuples and 2+1-tuples
Reachable states Unreachable l+1-tuples
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0 || * - - * - - - - - - - (0,2), (0,3), (0,5), (0,6), (0,7), (0,8), (0,9), (0,10), (0,11)
1 || * - - * - - - - - - - (1,2), (1,3), (1,5), (1,6), (1,7), (1,8), (1,9), (1,10), (1,11)
2 || * - - * - - - - - - - (2,2), (2,3), (2,5), (2,6), (2,7), (2,8), (2,9), (2,10), (2,11)
3 || * 1 - * - - - - - - - (3,2,2),(3,3), (3,5), (3,6), (3,7), (3,8), (3,9), (3,10), (3,11)
4 || * - - + - - - - - - - (4,2), (4,3), (4,5), (4,6), (4,7), (4,8), (4,9), (4,10), (4,11)
5 || * - - + - - - - - - - (5,2), (5,3), (5,5), (5,6), (5,7), (5,8), (5,9), (5,10), (5,11)
6 || * - - * - - - - - - - (6,2), (6,3), (6,5), (6,6), (6,7), (6,8), (6,9), (6,10), (6,11)
7 || * - - * - - 1 - - - - (7,2), (7,3), (7,5), (7,6), (7,7,7),(7,8), (7,9), (7,10), (7,11)
8 || * - - * - - - - - - - (8,2), (8,3), (8,5), (8,6), (8,7), (8,8), (8,9), (8,10), (8,11)
9 || * - 1 * - - - - - - - (9,2), (9,3,3),(9,5), (9,6), (9,7), (9,8), (9,9), (9,10), (9,11)
A || * - - * - 1 - - - - - (A,2), (A,3), (A,5), (A,6,6),(A,7), (A,8), (A,9), (A,10), (A,11)
B || * - - * 1 - - - - - - (B,2), (B,3), (B,5,5),(B,6), (B,7), (B,8), (B,9), (B,10), (B,11)
C || * - - * - - - - - - - (C,2), (C,3), (C,5), (C,6), (C,7), (C,8), (C,9), (C,10), (C,11)
D || * - - * - - - - - - - (D,2), (D,3), (D,5), (D,6), (D,7), (D,8), (D,9), (D,10), (D,11)
E || * - - * - - - - - - - (E,2), (E,3), (E,5), (E,6), (E,7), (E,8), (E,9), (E,10), (E,11)
F || * - - * - - - - - - - (F,2), (F,3), (F,5), (F,6), (F,7), (F,8), (F,9), (F,10), (F,11)
"*" - an arbitrary number of users, "+" - an arbitrary number of users greater than 0, "-" - no user, "1" - exactly one user.
[1] B. Zimmerova and P. Varekova: Reflecting creation and destruction of instances in CBSs modelling and verification. In Proceedings of the Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS 07), pages 257 - 264, Znojmo, Czech Republic, 2007.
[2] B. Zimmerova, P. Varekova, N. Benes, I. Cerna, L. Brim, and J. Sochor. The Common Component Modeling Example: Comparing Software Component Models, chapter Component-Interaction Automata Approach (CoIn). To appear in LNCS, 2007.