[TYPES] FInCo 2005: FOUNDATIONS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTATION -- CFP

[Bill Rounds]

Maybe I can put it this way -- TMs, lambda - calculus, etc. are
all at heart about the mathematical concept of function. Functions
-- basically the computable ones, higher-order, whatever -- are what we 
agree we are talking
about. But what mathematical concept do process calculi, ambients, etc. 
  embody?
In my opinion, the best reponse to this has been the mathematical 
concept of ``game''.
That gets at some aspects of interaction, but I'm not sure it's 
everything.

Sounds like an interesting workshop.

-Bill

On Sep 24, 2004, at 2:08 PM, Goldin, Dina wrote:

> [The Types Forum, 
> http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list]
>
> Dear Martin,
>
>>> However, a satisfactory foundation of interactive
>>> computation, analogously to the one that Turing Machines
>>> and lambda-calculus provide for algorithms, is still lacking.
>>
>> i take issue with that statement. in fact i think it's wrong.
>> in what sense are various process calculi worse foundations
>> for interactive computation than Turing Machines and lambda
>> calculus provide for algorithms (whatever you may mean by
>> algorithms)? of course many of the existing approaches
>> towards modeling concurrency have their problems, but that
>> is also true of these sequential models.
>
> There is nothing wrong with process calculi.  We were referring
> specifically to the lack of a unifying foundation for interaction,
> one that provides a common perspective for the many "existing
> approaches towards modeling concurrency".  This has now been
> clarified in our CFP (at http://www.cse.uconn.edu/cse/finco05/).
>
> Perhaps this goal is too ambitious?  You are encouraged to
> submit a position paper on this matter!
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Dina
> =========================
>
> Computer Science & Engineering Dept.
> University of Connecticut
> 371 Fairfield Rd., Unit 2155
> Storrs, CT 06269