Proposition 4.1 (i), p. 212 — every K ⊆ L_m(𝒢) is marked by a complete supervisor with L(𝒮/𝒢) = L(𝒢)
ProvedRamadgeWonham.Synthesis.prop_4_1_idiscrete-event-systemsp2o-batch-p200ap2o-gran-per-chapterp2o-plan-paperp2o-v1supervisory-control
Let be a generator over a finite alphabet with controllable events , and assume is trim in the sense . For each sublanguage there is a complete supervisor (with accessible automaton) such that
This expresses that marking is independent of control: any set of plant tasks can be recorded without restricting the plant at all.
Formalization Note. The standing assumptions of the paper (finite alphabet, from §4, accessible supervisor automaton) are explicit hypotheses and conjuncts.
Preamble
import Mathlib import Definitions.Def_RamadgeWonham_Shared_Supervisor
Formal statement
namespace RamadgeWonham.Synthesis
/-- Ramadge–Wonham 1987, Proposition 4.1 (i), p. 212. Standing assumptions: `Σ` finite (p. 207),
`𝒢` trim, `L(𝒢) = L̄_m(𝒢)` (§4, p. 212), supervisors accessible (p. 210). For each sublanguage
`K ⊆ L_m(𝒢)` there is a complete supervisor `𝒮` with `L(𝒮/𝒢) = L(𝒢)` and `L_m(𝒮/𝒢) = K`. -/
theorem prop_4_1_i {α : Type} [Fintype α] (G : Shared.Generator α) (Ec : Set α)
(hG : G.L = Shared.pre G.Lm) (K : Set (List α)) (hK : K ⊆ G.Lm) :
∃ 𝒮 : Shared.Supervisor α Ec, 𝒮.S.Accessible ∧ Shared.Complete G 𝒮 ∧
Shared.Lsup G 𝒮 = G.L ∧ Shared.Lmsup G 𝒮 = K := by sorry
end RamadgeWonham.Synthesis
Source
Ramadge and Wonham, Supervisory Control of a Class of Discrete Event Processes, SIAM J. Control Optim. 25(1), 1987, p. 212, Proposition 4.1 (i)
Human review
Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).
Confirmed by the moderator at approval.