POWER DOMAINS AND PREDICATE TRANSFORMERS: A TOPOLOGICAL VIEW M.B.

Smyth Department of Computer Science University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, Scotland

Abstract The broad theme of the paper is that topological concepts are basic to computer science. Such concepts as "specifications", "predicate transformer", and "nondeterThe

minism" can be greatly illuminated by being formulated in topological terms. specific tasks we undertake ace: domain constructions;

to provide a more adequate framework for power-

and to show that the connection between (DiJkstra's) weakest

preconditions and the Smyth powerdomain, established by Plotkin for the case of flat domains, actually holds in full generality.

The broad theme of this paper is that topological concepts are basic to computer science. benefits. The recognition of this relationship brings both conceptual and technical Such concepts a s " s p e c i f i c a t i o n " , "predicate transformer", and "nondeterThe

minism" can be greatly illuminated by being formulated in topological terms.

topological formulation enables a more adequate technical treatment to be given, by drawing on a well-established body of mathematical knowledge. One main area of application is that of powerdomain theory. of [15], We show that the ideas

[20] are in perfect harmony with topological treatments of multifunctions One

and spaces of subsets (or "hyperspaees") going back at least to Vietoris [22].

obstacle to perceiving this has been that the mathematicians have, for the most part, been interested only in Hausdorff spaces. We propose (Definition 5) a finitary notion

of "power space" which includes the existing (finitary) powerdomain and hyperspace constructs as special cases, and which is at the same time more direct and accessible (given a minimal acquaintance with topology) than the versions of [15], [20]. But,

for reasons of space, we do not develop the power space theory here and, in particular, we consider the possibility of extending it to cover infinitary powerdomains (as in [I], [17]) only in passing. Instead, we consider Dijkstra's predicate transformers.

Here, the topological interpretation is even more direct and compelling than in the case of the power domains. It immediately shows us how to generalize the weakest

precondition semantics, and its connection with the upper (or Smyth) powerdomain (cf. Plotkin [16]), to arbitrary domains. (The treatment in [6] and [16] is, of The removal of the restriction to

course, restricted to flat, or discrete, domains.)

flat domains should permit the development of more adequate programming logics. The key to the work of generalization presented here, as to much recent mathematical work that seeks to escape the limitations of the traditional insistence on Hausdorff

663

separation, is the use of sober spaces, frames, and related concepts ("pointless topology"). These, along with more standard topological material, are briefly

introduced in Section i.

i. A)

Topology Preliminaries. In this sub-section we recall some rudimentary topological notions

whichwill

be used repeatedly in the sequel.

A topology on a set S is a collection of subsets of S that is closed under finite intersection and arbitrary union. topological space ( S , ~ ; A set S together with a topology ~ o n S is a We also

the elements of ~ are the open sets of the space. (complete) lattice of open sets of the space X.

use the notation ~(X) for the A base of the topology ~ o n of elements of ~.

S is a subset ~ c ~ s u c h a subset ~ c

that every open set is the union that every open set is the

A subbase of ~ i s

~such ~is

union of finite intersections of elements o f ~ . that ~ ~ ; any collection ~ c ~

then the least topology such topology

S may be taken as the subbase of a (unique)

The topologies on a set S, ordered by inclusion, form a complete lattice: for T a set of topologies, is the topology with subbase UT. is the trivial topology {~,S}, while the greatest is ~ S Notation. For a poset (P,~), x E P, X ~ P, we write

the lub VT,

The least topology on S

(the discrete topology).

+x for {ylx<y} +X for U{+xlx ~ X}. X is +-closed if X = +X. Examples. Similarly for +x, +X, +-closed. We

(i) Euclidean space R n, with base the open rational intervals.

are more interested in non-Hausdorff (indeed, n o n T I) spaces, such as: (2) Alexandroff topology of a poset, consisting of the +-closed sets; especially (3) Scott topology of a poset (usually a cpo) (P,<). A set 0 c P is open iff 0 and

is +-closed and, for any directed set Y c P, if VY ~ 0 then some element of Y is in 0. We are mainly interested in the case that P is an ~-algebraic cpo (there are countably many finite elements, and each element is the sup of a chain of finite elements). Here the Scott topology is very simply described: finite. For any topology ~ o n x ~Y S, we have the specialization preorder ~ o n S, defined by: it has as base the sets +a, a

~df V0 ~ ~ . x 6 0 -> y ~ 0. = !~ ~ ~'"

If ~,~' are topologies on S, then ~ v ~

A subset Q of a space x is compact provided that any family of open sets whose union contains X (so that the family covers X) has a finite subfamily which covers X. (In Bourbaki, Q is allowed to be only quasi-compact under these circumstances, unless X is Hausdorff; but this convention seems unnecessary.)

664
-i

If X,Y are

(topological)

spaces, a m a p f: X -> Y is continuous if the inverse f (equivalently,

(0)

of e a c h set 0 open in Y is open in X is closed). Fact.

if the inverse of each closed set

If D,D' are cpo's, then f: D -> D' is continuous w.r.t, the Scott t o p o l o g i e s

of D,D' iff f preserves lubs of d i r e c t e d sits. M i s c e l l a n e o u s notation. a l g e b r a i c cpo D; ~ fin(S) We use B D for the basis (set of finite elements) ~ of an for the

for the c o l l e c t i o n of finite subsets of S;

c a t e g o r y of topological spaces w i t h c o n t i n u o u s functions as morphisms. B) C o m p u t a t i o n a l significance of t o p o l o g i c a l ideas. We think of a t o p o l o g i c a l space d e f i n e d on the

as a "data type", w i t h the open sets as the type.

(computable) p

T a k i n g a p r e d i c a t e on a space X to be a c o n t i n u o u s m a p f r o m X into the B o o l e a n /tt, we have (trivially) that a subset S of X is open iff S i s p-l(tt) there is an order-

cpo B = f f ~

for some p r e d i c a t e p.

(To make more of a t h e o r e m o u t of this: and [X ->~)], w h e r e D i s

i s o m o r p h i s m b e t w e e n ~(X)

the t w o - p o i n t cpo.)

A n o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e n o t i o n of c o m p u t a b l e p r o p e r t y w o u l d be that in w h i c h P is c o n s i d e r e d computable iff the set of (codes, or indices) of (computable) elements

s a t i s f y i n g P can be e f f e c t i v e l y e n u m e r a t e d ef. Rogers [19]).

(so that P is a c o m p l e t e l y r.e. class, (Rogers p.76) shows, in effect, that in A

The t h e o r e m of Rice et al

the case of the domain ~m,

the two notions of c o m p u t a b l e p r o p e r t y are equivalent. (Plotkin [18], Sec. 7, p.9)

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the R i c e t h e o r e m

shows that the equiv-

alence holds in any "effectively given" algebraic cpo. Intuitively, the idea of a c o m p u t a b l e p r o p e r t y is simply this: we have a u n i f o r m

p r o c e d u r e that, g i v e n

[a code for) an e l e m e n t x, tells us w i t h i n a finite time that Of course, this is just the idea of semi-

P(x) holds, w h e n e v e r that is true. decidability.

A n idea that w i l l surface from time to time, a l t h o u g h we are not going to d e v e l o p it in detail here, is that a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of an o b j e c t or countable) (say, a program) is a (finite

list of p r o p e r t i e s that the o b j e c t is to satisfy.

In v i e w of our

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s w i t h o p e n sets, this m e a n s that w h a t is s p e c i f i e d is always a countable i n t e r s e c t i o n of o p e n sets, in o t h e r w o r d s a ~ 6 - s e t Kuratowski [13]). but it will have the (see

The n o t i o n of a compact set is a little h a r d e r to motivate:

significance for us of a "finitarily specifiable" set or, alternatively, of a set of results attainable b y a b o u n d e d l y n o n - d e t e r m i n i s t i c p r o c e s s these p o i n t s in Sec. 2). Computability/continuity. But one r e q u i r e m e n t We are not g o i n g to stress "effectiveness" in this paper. (we will e l a b o r a t e on

(for a c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y r e a s o n a b l e space) w h i c h we m a k e use of is C o m p u t a b i l i t y concepts will, in

that there should be a countable base of open sets.

665

general, be r e l a t i v e n o t just to the topologies of the spaces involved, but to the p a r t i c u l a r open bases chosen. It is not s t r i c t l y c o r r e c t t h a t arbitrary open sets the computable p r o p e r t i e s will, rather, be the basic

r e p r e s e n t c o m p u t a b l e properties;

o p e n sets and "effective" unions of them. We can n o w give a simple r e a s o n why computable functions should be e x p e c t e d to be continuous. L e t f: X -> Y be computable, w h e r e X , Y are "effective" spaces (so that,

among other things, p a r t i c u l a r bases are a s s u m e d for X,Y). computable, p r o p e r t y p: Y -> ~. compose) (open set) in Y. is Thus B is p-1(tt)

L e t B be a basic, hence

for some computable

T h e n f-l(B)

(p 9 f)-l(tt), hence

(assuming that computable functions So f-i takes b a s i c open

a c o m p u t a b l e property, therefore an o p e n set, in X.

sets, hence a r b i t r a r y o p e n sets, of Y to open sets of X. C) Points vs. properties. Pointless topology. (basic) o p e n sets o f a space as the funda-

(i) ~ - s p a c e s .

If we r e a l l y think of the

m e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s of i n t e r e s t in that space, then, p r e s u m a b l y points h a v i n g the same n e i g h b o u r h o o d s should not be distinguished. s e p a r a t i o n property": D e f i n i t i o n I. Vx,y E X Equivalently, A space X is T O p r o v i d e d ((V0 E ~(X). x E 0 ~ y s 0) -> x : y). X is T O p r o v i d e d that its s p e c i a l i z a t i o n p r e o r d e r is a p a r t i a l order. of X, got by i d e n t i f y i n g p o i n t s We thus r e q u i r e spaces to have the "T O

N o t e that for any space X w e have the ~ - i f i c a t i o n having the same n e i g h b o u r h o o d systems.

A l t e r n a t i v e l y - the p r o c e d u r e we shall adopt

in Section 2 - one forms the T 0 - i f i c a t i o n by s e l e c t i n g a d i s t i n g u i s h e d e l e m e n t from each e q u i v a l e n c e class in the s p e c i a l i z a t i o n preorder. (ii) Sober spaces. A m o r e radical p o s i t i o n w o u l d be that, since we can be c o n c e r n e d p r o p e r t i e s of points, points should be Points, in this approach, will

only w i t h the

(ascertainable/computable)

t r e a t e d as logical c o n s t r u c t i o n s out of properties. be m e r e "bundles of properties". If X is a space w i t h t o p o l o g y ~ , generally,

B u t w h i c h b u n d l e s are appropriate? and x 6 X, let us w r i t e ~(x) for {0 ~ ~ I x ~ 0~ (more

if ~ is any base for the topology, we m a y w r i t e ~(x) Any subset ~ o f ~ such t h a t ~ =

for the set of basic for some x satisfies

o p e n n e i g h b o u r h o o d s of x). the three conditions: (i)

~(x)

if U ~ ~, V ~ ~ and U c V, then V 6 ~; if U , V E ~ then U n V 6 ~; for any family (Ui)i61 of open sets, if l l~U' C ~ then U.l 6 ~ for some i. (i) and (2) is a filter in ~. A filter s a t i s f y i n g (3) is

(2)
(3)

A subset ~ of ~ s a t i s f y i n g

said to be c o m p l e t e l y prime;

the intuitive m e a n i n g of

(3) is that a p o i n t w h i c h

possesses the d i s j u n c t i o n of the p r o p e r t i e s Ui, p o s s e s s e s at least one of these properties. ~an Clearly, the n o t i o n of a c o m p l e t e l y p r i m e filter can be f o r m u l a t e d for

arbitrary c o m p l e t e lattice.

Now, as one m a y r e a d i l y check, the statement that a space X is T O is e q u i v a l e n t to :

666

for any c o m p l e t e l y p r i m e filter = ~(X) (x). Informally:

in ~(X), there is at m o s t one p o i n t x such that

a space is T O iff there is at m o s t one p o i n t w i t h a g i v e n

b u n d l e of properties.

A sober space is one in w h i c h there is a p e r f e c t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e T h a t is: for e v e r y c o m p l e t e l y p r i m e filter ~ i n ~(X) (x).

b e t w e e n p o i n t s and b u n d l e s of properties.

D e f i n i t i o n 2. The space X is sober provided,

~(X), there is exactly one p o i n t x s u c h that ~ =

Loosely, w e m a y say that a space is sober iff it is c o m p l e t e l y d e t e r m i n e d by its lattice of properties. For sober spaces X,Y, if ~(X), ~(Y) are i s o m o r p h i c lattices,

then X,Y are h o m e o m o r p h i c spaces. For any space X we have its s o b e r i f i c a t i o n (least sober extension), Sobr(X), w h i c h

w e m a y take as the set of all c o m p l e t e l y p r i m e filters in ~(X)

(instead of just those

w h i c h h a p p e n to c o r r e s p o n d to points in X), w i t h base for the t o p o l o g y the sets ~0 = {~I0 G ~}, where 0 ranges over ~(X). We note in p a s s i n g that, for a more "effective" t r e a t m e n t of the d e f i n i t i o n s and

c o n s t r u c t i o n s c o n s i d e r e d here, one can w o r k w i t h an a r b i t r a r i l y chosen c o u n t a b l e b a s e ~in p l a c e o f ~(=~(X)) . (i) Every H a u s d o r f f space is sober. (indeed, c o n t i n u o u s poset) is sober. In detail, for D for some

Examples (2)

E v e r y algebraic cpo

algebraic:

if ~ is a c o m p l e t e l y p r i m e filter in ~(D), then 0 ~ ~ iff +a ~ ~

a ~ 0, by the t h i r d condition.

In consequence, the c o m p l e t e l y p r i m e filters may be These filters in turn are in (orderOne

i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the filters of basic opens +a. preserving)

b i j e c t i o n w i t h the ideals in BD, and h e n c e w i t h the points of D.

o b s e r v e s here that c o m p l e t i o n b y ideals m a y be c o n s i d e r e d as a special case of soberification. T h a t is: for any p o s e t B, the S c o t t t o p o l o g y on the c o m p l e t i o n of

B coincides w i t h the s o b e r i f i c a t i o n of the A l e x a n d r o f f t o p o l o g y on B. It is i n t e r e s t i n g that not e v e r y cpo is sober in its Scott t o p o l o g y (Johnstone [i0]).

O n the other hand, every sober space is d i r e c t e d l y complete in its s p e c i a l i z a t i o n order. Several a l t e r n a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of the sober spaces are d i s c u s s e d in w o r k s such as [3], [7]. The m o s t adequate is in terms of an a d j u n c t i o n b e t w e e n T ~ p and a (= c o m p l e t e The left

s u i t a b l e c a t e g o r y of lattices - namely, Frm, the c a t e g o r y of frames H e y t i n g algebras)

and m a p s w h i c h p r e s e r v e finite m e e t s and arbitrary joins.

half o f the a d j u n c t i o n is in effect ~, the r i g h t h a l f is a functor Pt w h i c h acts on objects by sending a frame to its space of c o m p l e t e l y prime filters. sober iff it is Pt(L) for some frame L; A space is

there is a c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o t i o n of spatial The a d j u n c t i o n cuts down to an equivand ~__rm__ are in "opposite" R e c e n t w o r k has shown

frames, n a m e l y those w h i c h are values of ~. alence (or rather, a duality, since the

morphisms in ~ p

directions)

b e t w e e n the sober spaces and the spatial frames.

that t h e r e m a y be s i g n i f i c a n t advantages, not least w i t h respect to c o n s t r u c s

667

in a v o i d i n g c o m m i t m e n t to "points" by w o r k i n g w i t h F { m rather than Top example is J o h n s t o n e paper; [ii]).

(a s t r i k i n g

This v i e w p o i n t informs m u c h of w h a t we are d o i n g in this

it is not m a d e m o r e explicit, so as to spare the i n t r o d u c t i o n of too m u c h

u n f a m i l i a r machinery. Example. W h a t frames are of the form ~(D) for D an algebraic cpo? The o p e n sets for

of D are in b i j e c t i o n w i t h the +-closed subsets o f B D. suitable choice of D T h e o r e m 4.1.12 of (namely the c o m p l e t i o n of BD).

N o w B D can be any poset,

Thus, a d a p t i n g the R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

[23]

(for e'lementary e v e n t structures) we find that the frames in

q u e s t i o n are the p r i m e a l g e b r a i c complete lattices.

2.

P o w e r domains and V i e t o r i s t o p o l o g y

In the s t u d y of the s e m a n t i c s of n o n d e t e r m i n i s m one s t r a n g e l y n e g l e c t e d avenue of a p p r o a c h is that of s e e i n g w h a t m a t h e m a t i c i a n s have h a d to say about c o n t i n u i t y notions for m a n y - v a l u e d functions, finds m u c h of relevance there; and about spaces of subsets. On investigation, one are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d [13]). [2]:

the p o w e r domains, in particular, (Vietoris

to ideas e x p o u n d e d as long ago as 1921 For inverses of m a n y - v a l u e d (or multi-)

[22], cf. K u r a t o w s k i

functions, we adopt the n o t a t i o n of B e r g e

if F: X -> Y is a m u l t i f u n c t i o n ,

then F+(S) is {xIFx c S} for S c y, w h i l e F-(S) is

the r e l a t i o n a l inverse {xlFx N S ~ @}. D e f i n i t i o n 3. A m u l t i f u n c t i o n F: X -> Y is upper s e m i c o n t i n u o u s and lower s e m i c o n t i n u o u s (usc) if F+(0) is

o p e n in X w h e n e v e r 0 is o p e n in Y;

(isc) if F-(0)

is open

in X w h e n e v e r 0 is o p e n in Y (equivalently, if F+(Q) is closed w h e n e v e r Q is closed). Finally, F is c o n t i n u o u s if it is b o t h usc and isc. The fair m e r g e function FM: ~ x ~ -> [~ is isc but not usc. Say Z is thus

Example. {0,1}. FM+(S)

T a k i n g S as +{01,i0}, we find that <0,I> ~ FM+(S), b u t <00,1> ~ FM+(S); is n o t open, so F M is not usc.

On the o t h e r hand, if S is an a r b i t r a r y open = {<x,x'~13 finite initial

set +B, w h e r e B is a set of finite sequences, t h e n FM-(S)

segments a,a' of x,x' A Bb E B such that some m e r g e of a,a' extends b}, and this is clearly open. G i v e n a n o t i o n of c o n t i n u i t y for m u l t i f u n c t i o n s F: X -> Y, it is natural to ask w h e t h e r there is a r e a s o n a b l e topology on Y such t h a t F is continuous as a m u l t i In

function iff it is c o n t i n u o u s in the o r d i n a r y sense as a f u n c t i o n from X to 4~f. the case of the three c o n t i n u i t i e s of Definition, topologies on ~ Y w h i c h agree in this sense. there are i n d e e d easily d e f i n e d

We w i l l arrive at these t o p o l o g i e s b y c o n s i d e r i n g some n o t i o n s of "properties of subsets" w h i c h r e a d i l y s u g g e s t themselves. G i v e n a n o t i o n of "property", i.e. a t o p o l o g y j

over X w e have, then, two obvious d e r i v e d n o t i o n s of p r o p e r t y over subsets S of X: e v e r y e l e m e n t of S has a g i v e n p r o p e r t y P; ations of these are also possible. Formally: or, some e l e m e n t o f S has P. Combin-

668

D e f i n i t i o n 4.

G i v e n a space X and a subset ~ of ~ X ,

the upper t o p o l o g y on S has as the

a base the c o l l e c t i o n of sets of the f o r m U 0 (0 o p e n in X), w h e r e U 0 = {SIS c 0}; lower t o p o l o g y has as subbase the L 0, w h e r e L 0 = {SIS n 0 ~ ~}; (or convex) t o p o l o g y takes as subbase b o t h the L 0 and the U 0. finite is m o r e usual.) (least) c o m m o n refinement, that is, the lub w h i l e the V i e t o r i s

(The name convex is non-standard; Remark.

The Vietoris t o p o l o g y is the

(in

the lattice of topologies), of the u p p e r a n d lower topologies. and lower t o p o l o g i e s is trivial, in general.

The 91b o f the u p p e r

Our d e f i n i t i o n of the three t o p o l o g i e s is m o r e g e n e r a l t h a n those u s u a l l y g i v e n [13]) in that we have p a r a m e t e r i z e d o n ~ (usually a p a r t i c u l a r c o l l e c t i o n c

(e.g.

X is

fixed);

and we give no p r i o r i t y to T1-spaces. One r e a s o n for r e s t r i c t i n g the class of sets is w e e n s u r e this b y p i c k i n g d i s t i n g u i s h e d

W h y do we n o t simply take ~ to be ~X?

to ensure that the r e s u l t i n g space is TO; elements f r o m the e q u i v a l e n c e classes.

It is e a s y to see, for example, that two sets

are e q u i v a l e n t w i t h r e s p e c t to the u p p e r t o p o l o g y iff they have the same +-closure (in the s p e c i a l i z a t i o n order); it is t h e r e f o r e r e a s o n a b l e to r e s t r i c t to +-closed S i m i l a r remarks apply to the o t h e r two

sets w h e n c o n s i d e r i n g the u p p e r topoIogy. topologies (details in T h e o r e m 2).

A further r e s t r i c t i o n

(in the case of the u p p e r a n d convex topologies)

arises from

the desire to capture the idea of b o u n d e d n o n - d e t e r m i n i s m .

A boundedly non-deter-

m i n i s t i c p r o c e s s can, w e suppose, be r e p r e s e n t e d as a finitely b r a n c h i n g tree T such that the p o s s i b l e results of the c o m p u t a t i o n form the "frontier" of T p a t h s of T). (limits a l o n g

A little more precisely, we s u p p o s e that w i t h each p o i n t of T is "potential" results, and that the sets o c c u r r i n g a l o n g any (The g e n e r a t i n g trees

a s s o c i a t e d a set R ( p ) o f

p a t h from a d e c r e a s i n g sequence h a v i n g a u n i q u e l i m i t point. of [20] are a special case of this.

The "set of p o t e n t i a l results" a s s o c i a t e d w i t h +a.)

a p o i n t of one of those trees, l a b e l l e d w i t h finite e l e m e n t a, is of course We c l a i m that the frontier F of such a tree T is compact. F c l~i01. The set {p E T I Bi.R(p) c 0 } m u s t be finite; Indeed, suppose

for if not, K ~ n i g ' s lemma

implies that there is an infinite p a t h p0,pl,... , such that for all j,l, R(p) ~ 0, w h i c h implies t h a t lim pj ~ 0 (for all I). It follows that there is a (finite) 3 c r o s s - s e c t i o n of T for w h i c h e a c h a s s o c i a t e d set is contained in a single 0 ; thus a I finite c o l l e c t i o n of the 0 suffices to c o v e r this c r o s s - s e c t i o n and h e n c e F. (The i j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the r e s t r i c t i o n to c o m p a c t sets is taken up a g a i n at the end of this section.) If F: X -> Y is a m u l t i f u n c t i o n , we d e n o t e b y F: X -> ~ Y the c o r r e s p o n d i n g function. T h e o r e m i. Let Y be a s p a c e , ~ a (non-empty) subset of ~Y. Then, for any space X, a is c o n t i n u o u s

m u l t i f u n c t i o n F: Xl-> Y w i t h

(multi)values in ~ is usc iff F: X - > ~

w.r.t, the upper t o p o l o g y o n e ; lower topology,

s i m i l a r l y for lower s e m i - c o n t i n u i t y w.r.t, the Moreover, the three

and for c o n t i n u i t y w.r.t, the c o n v e x topology.

669

t o p o l o g i e s on ~ a r e

u n i q u e l y d e t e r m i n e d by the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t they agree w i t h the in this sense.

c o n t i n u i t y notions for m u l t i f u n c t i o n s , Proof The

(sub-)bases of the three t o p o l o g i e s o n ~ are so c h o s e n as to make the first (notice that a f u n c t i o n is continuous if the inverse For uniqueness, n o t i c e that d i s t i n c t

s t a t e m e n t of the T h e o r e m trivial

image of e a c h s u b b a s i c o p e n set is open). topologies ~ , Z as codomain: continuous. ~'

on a set Z cannot y i e l d the same set of c o n t i n u o u s functions w i t h (Z,~) a n d (Z,~') cannot b o t h be D

the i d e n t i t y functions b e t w e e n

We now introduce our d e f i n i t i o n of the three "power spaces" of a (sober) space. Notation~ 0 +S. L e t X be a space. Also, CL(X), UC(X) For S c X, S denotes the closure of S, w h i l e cony(S) and COMP(X) are the sets of closed, is

+-closed and c o m p a c t We use ~ L for

sets of X respectively;

CONV(X)

is the set of fixed p o i n t s of conv.

the s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o r d e r d e r i v e d from the lower topology; D e f i n i t i o n 5. topology; The lower p o w e r space of X,PSL(X), is CL(X)

s i m i l a r l y for ~C' mL' etc. t a k e n w i t h the lower

the u p p e r p o w e r space, PSu(X), is COMP(X) is COMP(X)

N UC(X) w i t h the u p p e r topology; w i t h the convex topology. X, COMP(X) and

and the convex p o w e r space, PSc(X) T h e o r e m 2. COMP(X) Proof PSL(X), PSu(X)

0 CONV(X)

and PSc(X)

are the T 0 - i f i c a t i o n s o f

t a k e n w i t h the lower, upper and convex topologies, PSL: Clearly, it suffices to show that S m L S'

respectively. iff

(in the lower topology)

S mL - 7 9 S.

But, by definition,

a p o i n t x is in S iff e v e r y o p e n set c o n t a i n i n g x m e e t s L S' iff

It follows at once that S is the largest set e q u i v a l e n t to S and that S m E L S'

PSu:

Evidently,

an o p e n set 0 contains a set S iff +S ~ 0. Moreover,

H e n c e S mU +S, and if S since if

is c o m p a c t then so is +S.

+S is the largest set e q u i v a l e n t to S:

x ~ +S then for e a c h y ~ S there is an open n e i g h b o u r h o o d 0 that, p u t t i n g U = y E yS0y, we have S ~ U w h i l e x ~ U. PSc: Since S c conv(S) c S, S ~L cony(S); similarly, = conv(S).

of y such that x ~ 0y, so Y The c o n c l u s i o n follows as before. S ~U cony(S). Further, H e n c e , S mC conv(S

A n easy c a l c u l a t i o n shows that conv(conv(S)) (since Y mL S) and Y ~ +S (since Y m u S);

if Y mC S t h e n Y c

hence Y c conv(S).

Finally, if S is compact

t h e n conv(S), as the i n t e r s e c t i o n of a closed set w i t h a c o m p a c t set, is also compact. We have thus shown that the elements o f PSc(X) the m c - e q u i v a l e n c e classes in (COMP(X),C). are the canonical (largest) elements of o We have

The "hyperspace" m o s t u s u a l l y studied is CL(X) w i t h the V i e t o r i s topology.

r e s t r i c t e d to c o m p a c t sets as we are i n t e r e s t e d in m o d e l l i n g b o u n d e d n o n - d e t e r m i n i s m (but see remarks at end of this section). r e s t r i c t e d to T 1 - s p a c e s CONY(X) = CL(X) (see [14]). The s t a n d a r d t r e a t m e n t is, in effect,

Now, if X is TI, all sets are +-closed,

and, m o d u l o the r e s t r i c t i o n to compactness, our t h e o r y is e q u i v a l e n t B u t it seems clear that to have a g o o d t h e o r y applicable to non(this is one of the

to the usual one.

Tl-Spaces one needs to w o r k w i t h convex and not just closed sets m a i n c o n t r i b u t i o n s of P l o t k i n [15]).

670

It has been p r o p o s e d by de Bakker and Zucker

[4~ to use, as a p o w e r space construct, N o w it is n o t subsets of X, the It is true that

the H a u s d o r f f m e t r i c on the closed subsets of a m e t r i c sPace X. d i f f i c u l t to show that, for the compact (and t h e r e f o r e closed)

H a u s d o r f f m e t r i c t o p o l o g y coincides w i t h the V i e t o r i s topology.

they do not coincide in the n o n - c o m p a c t case, and t h a t de Bakker and Zucker a l l o w a r b i t r a r y closed sets. However, there is a q u e s t i o n as to w h i c h is the b e s t t o p o l o g y Michael [14] argues that the H a u s d o r f f m e t r i c

to Use in the n o n - c o m p a c t situation;

t o p o l o g y is m a t h e m a t i c a l l y less s a t i s f a c t o r y t h a n the Vietoris topology. We w i l l n e x t show that, in case D is an a l g e b r a i c cpo, the p o w e r spaces reduce to the u s u a l p o w e r domains over D. Following [20], w e shall define the p o w e r domains is the set of non-

of D as c o m p l e t i o n s of M(D) u n d e r suitable orderings, w h e r e M(D) empty finite subsets of B D. Smyth, p o w e r d o m a i n D e f i n i t i o n 6. by: A ~ E B iff V a ~ A . ~ b ~ B.a C b m A ~ B iff Vb s B . ~ a 6 A . a ~ b

F o r c o m p l e t e n e s s we treat, along w i t h the upper, or

[20], its dual, sometimes k n o w n as the Hoare p o w e r domain. Define the p r e - o r d e r s ~ ,C ,~ o n M(D) --L --U--C

Let D be an w - a l g e b r a i c cpo.

A~B

iff ~ ~ H ^ A ~ H .
[or Hoare), upper (or Smyth), and convex (or Plotkin) power domains

T h e n the lower

of D, d e n o t e d PDL(D) , PDu(D) , PDc(D) , are the completions by ideals of M(D), u n d e r the r e s p e c t i v e o r d e r i n g s ~L,~,C_C. A c t u a l l y we find i t c o n ~ n i e n t , m o s t of the time, to w o r k w i t h w-chains r a t h e r than d i r e c t e d ideals. w h e r e ~CH(E) of E. (equivalence classes of)

If (E,~) is a p r e o r d e r the_n (~CH(E),EL),

is the set of ~-chains of E, is a p r e o r d e r e q u i v a l e n t to the c o m p l e t i o n

To show that E is i s o m o r p h i c to a cpo D it suffices to show that t h e r e is a (~CH(E),~_L) onto D. We w r i t e

(pre-) o r d e r - p r e s e r v i n g and - r e f l e c t i n g s u r j e c t i o n of [X] for the ideal g e n e r a t e d b y an ~ - c h a i n X. p r e o r d e r on chains. L e m m a i. L e t D be ~-algebraic,

We usually omit the s u b s c r i p t L for the

S c D c o m p a c t and non-empty.

Then the set

U S = {A ~ M(D) IA C_U S} is ~ - d i r e c t e d ; Moreover Proof ~{+AIA 6 U S } = ~{+AIA

and C S = {A ~ M(D) IA C C S} is C c-directed.

6 C S} = %S. such that then

If 0 is an open s u p e r s e t of S, we can find an element K 0 o f M(D) S. For, since S is compact, HA E M(D).

K 0 c 0 and K0 ~ choose K 0 t ~ b e since +S = |So00. |

A ~ 0 ^ S c +A;

a m i n i m a l such A.

The last a s s e r t i o n of the lemma follows at once, since if A,B C U S w e have

It also follows t h a t U S is ~ - d i r e c t e d ,

A,B ~ K+An+ ~ B
Finally,

S
W r i t e K for K + A n % B. For each a @ A such that Find x 6 S

suppose A,B - C S. ~

Bc ~ K . a ~ c, augment K by adding to it an e l e m e n t A' chosen as follows. such t h a t a C x. F i n d b ~ B such that b ~ x.

T h e n choose a' such that a,b ~ a' ~ x.

Also, for e a c h b ~ B such that

Bc @ K.b = c, a u g m e n t K by a similarly chosen b'.

671

Let K' be the result of all these augmentations In defining the power domains,

of K.

Then A,B~_c K' ~--C S.

[]

the empty set is usually excluded from consideration. + For the comparison of power spaces with power domains we therefore define PSL(X) to + be the subspace of the non-empty elements of PSL(X) , and similarly for PSu(X) , +

PSc(X).
PSu(D)

Theorem 3.

Let D be an U-algebraic

cpo, taken with its Scott topology.

Then PSi(D),

and PS (D) are isomorphic, respectively. PDL(D) :

in their specialization

orders, with PDL(D) , PDH(D)

and PDc(D) Proof (i)

ideal in (M(D),C_L) , let L(I) = {ai{a} ~ I}. + Then L(I) is a +-closed subset of BD, and indeed L is an isomorphism of PSL(D) onto (~,c), where ~ i s If Z @ ~ t h e n the set of non-empty +-closed subsets of B D (with L -I as ~fin).

if I is a (directed)

Z = {xi+x n B D c Z}~ and closure is an isomorphism of (~,c) onto Thus (-) o L is the required isomorphism of

(CL(D),c), with inverse S ~>+S n B D. + PDL(D) onto PSL(D) (i.e. (CL(D),5)). (ii) Then PDu(D): %

For an w-chain H = H0 ~4J HI ~_U... in (M(D),~),

is order-preserving:

define #u(H) = 0+H.. ii indeed, if H ~ K then for each i there exists j with 0n the other hand, suppose ~ + H i ~ ~+~j. We consider

+H i _= +Kj, so that ~+H.l 3 ~+K.. i--'3 = the generating tree (cf.

[20]) whose finite paths are all the sequences <b0,...,bn> , The cross-sections of this tree are (multisets whose

where b i ~ K i and b i ~ bi~ I. corresponding that H i % b0 ~ b I ~

---

Kj;

sets are) the K.. For each i there must be a cross-section K. such 3 J for if not, we could by KSnig's Lemma find an infinite path ~ +Hi, h e n c e ~ b .
J 33

.... with each b

~ +Hi, h e n c e ~
J

K
3

~ +X i
-"

This shows

that ~U is order-reflecting. some H:

Further, every compact +-closed set Q is ~H(H) for Thus ~U deter-

by Lemma I, we have only to choose an H cofinal with UQ. + mines an isomorphism of PDu(D) onto PSu(D). (iii)
#(H) where

PDc(D) :
= ~u(H)

For an ~-chain H = H 0 ~-C HI C--C .... define

n #L([H]) ,

#L = ( ) o L is the isomorphism considered +%(H) c Cu(H).

in (i).

First,

+~(H) = ~u(H). For, This means (using

obviously

On the other hand, suppose x @ ~u(H).

---

K~nig's Lemma) then

that there is a chain a 0 ~ a i ~

. a I ~ #u(H) n ~L( [HI) , and so x 6 }~(H) .

Similarly,

,.. with a i 6 H. e n d u e . C x. But 1 ll-~ = #L( [H]) : the left-

to-right inclusion is again trivial, while if a @ #L([H]) we have a ~ a i (for some a i ~ H.)l and a i ~ }(H) ~ ai+ I --~ ... (for suitable ai+ k E Hi+ k ), so that a ~.a._l @ ~(H). l ~u(K) and #L([H]) ~L }L (~EK])" At the same time, it is Thus

~(K) iff #u(H) ~

clear that H C C K iff H ~ Hi ~ Kmax(j,k))

K & H ~L K (notice that if H i ~

and that H ~_~ K iff [HI c [K],

K. and H i ~L HK then ] Hence, by (i) and (ii), H CC K iff

r (H) ~C r (K).
For surjectivity, Lemma i); + suppose Q ~ PSc(D). Further, Let H be an ~-chain cofinal with CQ (see it is clear that ~L([H]) c Q. Then {a} U H 0 ~ C Q. Hence, To show that for some j,

then #U(H) = +Q.

#L([H]) ~ Q, suppose a ~ Q (a finite).

672

{a} U Z 0 ~

Z j.

Thus a ~ ~L([H]);

we have s h o w n t h a t #(H) = Q.

[]

P l o t k i n has o b s e r v e d that the p o w e r d o m a i n s over an algebraic cpo have a c o n v e n i e n t u n i v e r s a l characterisation, n a m e l y as free c o n t i n u o u s semilattices (see [8]). One

n a t u r a l l y tries to extend this to p o w e r spaces, in terms of free t o p o l o g i c a l semilattices. U n f o r t u n a t e l y this does not work, except for the r e l a t i v e l y u n i n t e r e s t i n g (for details, see [21])'. It seems that the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the A little has b e e n

lower p o w e r space

p o w e r spaces, in the general case, has to be rather indirect. said above to j u s t i f y the choice of c o m p a c t sets; in terms of "specifications".

w e can n o w add something to that

A specification, we have suggested, can be t a k e n to Since the set of p r o p e r t i e s to be s a t i s f i e d and logical i m p l i c a t i o n

be a countable collection of open sets. is o b v i o u s l y closed under c o n j u n c t i o n

(intersection)

(inclusion), we may as well say t h a t a s p e c i f i c a t i o n is a c o u n t a b l y - g e n e r a t e d filter of open sets. We shall say that a specification, ~, is finitary if the f o l l o w i n g .... is

c o n d i t i o n holds: in ~ ,

w h e n e v e r the union 0 of an i n c r e a s i n g sequence 00 c 01 c To say that the filter ~ c ~(X)

some 0 i is already in ~ .

is finitary is

thus e q u i v a l e n t to saying that it is itself an o p e n set in the complete lattice ~(X), taken w i t h the Scott topology; computable, or, f o l l o w i n g the ideas of Section i, that it is (the indices in

in the sense, e.g. that one can e f f e c t i v e l y enumerate all

of) the p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h b e l o n g to it. the p r e s e n t context, FACT ~*(Q)

The special i n t e r e s t of open filters,

is due to the following r e m a r k a b l e A set Q c x is c o m p a c t iff the set

Let X be a sober space.

= {0 ~ ~(X) IQ ~ Q} is an o p e n filter. compact

Moreover, if ~ i s

any open filter in

~(X), then n ~ i s of n ~ t h e n (@Su(X),~) 0 6 ~. and

(and, of course, +-closed),

and if 0 is any open s u p e r s e t between

Hence the maps ~*, N define an order-isomorphism

(0 Filt(~(x)),c), w h e r e 0 F i l t e r L, for L a complete lattice w i t h is the c o l l e c t i o n of o p e n filters in L. [9], and r e f e r e n c e s g i v e n there.)

Scott topology,

(See H o f m a n n & Mislove

O p e n filters p r o v i d e the link by w h i c h we c o n n e c t the upper p o w e r space w i t h w e a k e s t p r e c o n d i t i o n semantics, in the n e x t section. An e q u a l l y satisfactory d e s c r i p t i o n does not s e e m to be available for the convex p o w e r space, in the general case; these m a t t e r s are e x p l o r e d in [21].

We conclude this section w i t h some brief remarks on the i n f i n i t a r y p o w e r d o m a i n s i n t r o d u c e d r e c e n t l y by Apt and Plotkin (countable) as in [i]. upper nondeterminism. [i], P l o t k i n [17] for h a n d l i n g u n b o u n d e d

C o n s i d e r first the case of a flat, countable domain SI,

T h e n the upper t o p o l o g y on ~(S I) - {~} gives e x a c t l y the i n f i n i t a r y This upper t o p o l o g y is not sober, nor is the

(or Smyth) p o w e r d o m a i n of S~.

upper d o m a i n a cpo. (Plotkin) p o w e r d o m a i n

~tthe same time, the V i e t o r i s t o p o l o g y gives e x a c t l y the c o n v e x (~(SI) - {@}, E g l i - M i l n e r ordering); in this case the

hopology is sober, and the p o w e r d o m a i n is a cpo. ~re not v e r y interesting:

The lower t o p o l o g y and p o w e r d o m a i n

they are the same as in the finite case.

673

As for general domains, one suggestion is to treat the i n f i n i t a r y p o w e r spaces/ domains a n a l o g o u s l y to the finitary ones, r e p l a c i n g finite sets b y countable sets. That is, one observes that the (finitary) convex p o w e r space of an algebraic cpo, D, and similarly for the

is the s o b e r i f i c a t i o n of the Vietoris topology on ~fin(D), upper and lower p o w e r spaces.

For the infinitary construct, then, one could try the B u t w h e t h e r this leads anywhere is

s o b e r i f i c a t i o n of the space of countable subsets. not k n o w n at present.

3.

Predicate Transformers

R e c a l l that w e have d e f i n e d the "upper" inverse f+ of a (multi-)map f: X -> Y as f+: ~ Y -> ~X: S -> {xlf(x ) c S}. W h e n f is usc, f+ cuts down to a function from ~(Y) the p o i n t b e i n g that, just as ~ is a is a functor from the category But we w i l l not dwell on

to Q(X), w h i c h we m i g h t d e n o t e by ~+(f); functor from ~ p into Frm, ~+

(with ~+ = ~ o n objects)

of spaces and usc maps into a m o d i f i e d category of frames. the c a t e g o r i c a l aspect here. Since we i d e n t i f y predicates, are

or properties, w i t h o p e n sets, m a p s from ~(Y) to ~(X)

(the a p p r o p r i a t e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of) p r e d i c a t e t r a n s f o r m e r s in our framework. The wp(f,S) = f+(S).

upper inverse can be said to c o r r e s p o n d to the w e a k e s t precondition:

In j u s t i f i c a t i o n of these remarks, consider the p r e d i c a t e t r a n s f o r m e r s as i n t r o d u c e d by Dijkstra [6] and their correspondence, investigated by Plotkin [16], w i t h non-

d e t e r m i n i s t i c state transformations. X,Y.

Here w e are c o n c e r n e d w i t h discrete state sets

A p r e d i c a t e t r a n s f o r m e r from Y to X, satisfying D i j k s t r a ' s h e a l t h i n e s s is a strict, m u l t i p l i c a t i v e , continuous f u n c t i o n f r o m ~(Y) t ~ ~(X).

conditions,

P l o t k i n observes that there is an order i s o m o r p h i s m b e t w e e n the ~ p o of) h e a l t h y p r e d i c a t e t r a n s f o r m e r s from Y to X and the domain o f n o n - d e t e r m i n i s t i c state transformations t a k e n as that of X is ~(X). [X -> PDu(YI)]. Now, the t o p o l o g y of Y 1 is 8(Y) U {YI}, w h i l e

In o r d e r to regard a p r e d i c a t e transformer P: ~(Y) -> ~(X) as a

m a p from ~(YI) to ~(X), then, w e have only to give it a v a l u e for the a r g u m e n t YI; naturally, w e assume P(YI) t r a n s f o r m e r s to be the = X. Thus, we consider the d o m a i n of (healthy) p r e d i c a t e

(pointwise ordered) p o s e t of maps ~(YI)

-> ~(X) w h i c h are

strict and continuous and p r e s e r v e finite i n t e r s e c t i o n s section).

(including the null interthe corres-

O u r c l a i m is that, w i t h this v i e w of p r e d i c a t e transformers,

p o n d e n c e w i t h n o n - d e t e r m i n i s t i c maps can be e x t e n d e d far b e y o n d the case of d i s c r e t e spaces c o n s i d e r e d by D i j k s t r a and Plotkin; spaces. For Y a sober space, the p o i n t s of PSu(Y), as well as of Y itself, can be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h suitable filters in ~(Y), by the above FACT. m i n i s t i c and n o n - d e t e r m i n i s t i c ST's We w i l l be able to treat deterin a u n i f o r m way by (with indeed it extends to arbitrary sober

(state transformations)

r e g a r d i n g t h e m as maps f r o m X into the space Filt(~(Y)) b a s i c open sets the G0 = {~I0 s ~}, for 0 ~ ~(Y)).

of filters in ~(Y)

674

T h e o r e m 4. ~(f): ~(Y)

Let X,Y be sober spaces.

For a continuous map f: X -> Filt(~(Y)), = {xl0 C f(x)} ~ ~0}). Then

let

-> ~(X) be defined by ~(f)(0) = {xif(x)

(~(f) (0) is open in X by ~defines an o r d e r - i s o m o r p h i s m

continuity of f, since ~(f)(0) between p ~ (i) [X -> Filt(~(Y))]

and the p o s e t of PT's

(predicate transformers)

[~(Y) -> ~(X)] w h i c h satisfy p is monotonic and strict, between and preserves finite meets. Moreover, ~ cuts down to (i) and

an o r d e r - i s o m o r p h i s m (2) p is continuous

[X -> PSu(Y)]

and the poset of PT's satisfying sups; equivalently,

(i.e. preserves

directed

under our assump-

tion that spaces are second countable,

p preserves

sups of ~-chains). [X -> Y] and the p o s e t of PT's

It cuts down further to an o r d e r - i s o m o r p h i s m satisfying (2') (i) and

between

p is completely additive

(i.e. preserves

arbitrary

sups). the

Remark.

The final part of the t h e o r e m duality result m e n t i o n e d

(concerning

[X -> Y]) is essentially I.

(well-known)

at the end of Section to check that, of meet,

Proof of T h e o r e m 4. the PT ~ (f) satisfies that, for any filter

It is straightforward (i) 7, (for p r e s e r v a t i o n 0 N 0' E ~

for any f: X -> Filt(~(Y)), one uses the fact -> ~(X)

for example,

0 e ~ A 0' ~ ~). by:

For any p: ~(Y)

satisfying

(i), define T(p): X -> Filt(~(Y))

T(p) (x) = {0ix ~ p(0)}; again, one readily checks that condition (i) implies that T(p) (x) is a filter. (A) T is a right inverse of ~ To

prove the theorem,

it suffices to show that and that this remains

(i.e. that

T 9 n(f) (x) = f(x)), indicated; ~) and

true on cutting down in the ways (i.e. T(p) ~ T(q) iff p ! q)"

(B) T is strictly m o n o t o n i c we have

For the right inverse property,

T - z(f) (x) = {0ix ~ ~(f) (0)} = {010 s f(x)} = f(x). It remains to show that ~ and T cut down appropriately. f: X -> 0 Filt(Q(Y)) 01 c 02 c Suppose that

(recall that this codomain is identified with PSu(Y)) , and let sequence in ~(Y). Suppose also that x ~ ~(f) (U0i).

... be an increasing

This means that U0. ~ f(x). Since f(x) is (Scott-)open, 0 i 6 f(x) for some i; thus ll x ~ ~(f) (0.) for some i. This shows that ~(f) is continuous. One shows similarly l that if p satisfies (i) and (2), then T(p) maps X into 0 Filt(~(Y)). Suppose now that f: X -> Y (here we are of course identifying Y with the space of completely prime filters in ~(Y)). Let (QI)%6I be a family of open sets in Y.

Suppose that x ~ ~(f) ( U 0 ) , in other words U0 ~ f(x). Since f(x) is c o m p l e t e l y II 11 prime, some 0 q f(x). Thus x 6 ~(f) ( 0 ) for some %.. This shows that ~(f) is 1 1 additive. Again, it is easy to See that if p satisfies conditions (i) and (2'), then ~(p) maps X into Y. B) Suppose p ~ q, that is p(0) c q(0) for all 0 6 ~(Y). Then, for each x s X, On the

T(p) (x) = {0ix E p(0) } c {0ix 6 q(0) } = T(q) (x) ; other hand, x ~ q(0). suppose ~(p ~ q).

that is, T(p) ! T(q) .

Then for some x ~ X, 0 E Y we have x ~ p(0) while that is, ~(T(p) ! T(q)) . Thus strict mono-

But then T(p) (x) ~ T(q) (x) ;

675

tonicity obtains;

the theorem is proved. (more precisely, of part (2) of the theorem) is that

The significance of this theorem it gives us an equivalence,

in a very general setting, between a denotational semantic

using the upper power domain/space and axiomatic semantics in the manner of Dijkstra. The viewpoint of the upper powerdomain/predicate that a process passes a test transformer approach is, of course, iff all its possible computations

(satisfies a property)

do so - that is, it must pass the test. ponds to the lower topology two (convex topology).

Also to be considered is the view which corrr

(the process may pass the test), and the conjunction of th

Given a notion of successful computation, the resulting

specialization orders will give three preorders and equivalence notions for processes. It is interesting to note that (independently of the above) de Nicola and Hennessy have recently developed exactly this approach to the equivalence of processes. [5]

Acknowledgements Discussions with Gordon Plotkin have been very helpful. [7] has proved to be a continuing, almost inexhaustible, Financial support has been provided by the References I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Apt, K., Plotkin, G., A Cook's tour of countable non-determinism. Proc. ICALP 1981, Springer-Verlag LNCS 115, pp. 479-494 (1981). Berge, C., Espaces Topologiques: Fonctions Multivoques. Dunod, Paris (1959). Continuous Lattices, Proceedings Bremen 1979, ed. Banaschewski and Hoffman, Springer LN Math. 871 (1981). de Bakker, J., Zucker, J., Denotational semantics of concurrency, Proc. 14th ACM STOC, pp. 153-158 (1982). de Nicola, R., Hennessy, M., Testing equivalences for processes, CSR-123-82, Dept. of Computer Science, Edinburgh (1982). Dijkstra, E., A Discipline of Programming, Prentice-Hall (1976). Gierz, G., Hofmann, K., Keimel, K., Lawson, J., Mislove, M., Scott, D., A Compendium of Continuous Lattices. Springer (1980). Hennessy, M., Plotkin, G., Full abstraction for a simple parallel programming language. Proc. MFCS, Springer LNCS 74, pp. 108-120 (1979). Hofmann, K., Mislove, M., Local compactness and continuous lattices: in [3] (pp, 209-248). Johnstone, P., Scott is not always sober: in [3] (pp. 283-284). Johnstone, P., Tychonoff's theorem without the axiom of choice, Fund. Math. 113, pp. 21-35 (1981). Johnstone, P., Stone Spaces, Cambridge U.P. (198?). Kuratowski, K., Topology. Revised edition, Academic Press and PWN (1966). Michael, E., Topologies on spaces of subsets, Trans. AMS 71,pp.152-182 (1951). Plotkin, G., A powerdomain construction, SIAM J. Comput. 5,pp. 452-487 (1976). Plotkin, G., Dijkstra's predicate transformers and Smyth's powerdomains, Abstract Software Specifications (ed. D. Bj~rner) LNCS 86 (1980). Plotkin, G., A powerdomain for countable non-determinism, Proc. ICALP 1982. Plotkin, G., Domains: notes for lecture course, Edinburgh (1981). Rogers, H., Theory of Recursive Functions. Smyth, M., Power domains, JCSS 16 (1978). Smyth, M., Powerdomain and hyperspace. To appear. Vietoris, L., Monatsh. f. Math. u. Phys. 31, pp. 173-204 (1921). Winskel, G., Events in Computation, Thesis, Edinburgh (1980). (U.K.) SERC. The comprehensive treatise source of inspiration.