Skip to main content

Connecting Constrained Constructor Patterns and Matching Logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Rewriting Logic and Its Applications (WRLA 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 12328))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 151 Accesses

Abstract

Constrained constructor patterns are pairs of a constructor term pattern and a quantifier-free first-order logic constraint, built from conjunction and disjunction. They are used to express state predicates for reachability logic defined over rewrite theories. Matching logic has been recently proposed as a unifying foundation for programming languages, specification and verification. It has been shown to capture several logical systems and/or models that are important for programming languages, including first-order logic with fixpoints and order-sorted algebra. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between constrained constructor patterns and matching logic. The comparison result brings us a mutual benefit for the two approaches. Matching logic can borrow computationally efficient proofs for some equivalences, and the language of the constrained constructor patterns can get a more logical flavor and more expressiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This answers a question asked by Jacques Carette on the mathoverflow site (https://mathoverflow.net/questions/16180/formalizing-no-junk-no-confusion) ten years ago: Are there logics in which these requirements (“no junk, no confusion”) can be internalized?

  2. 2.

    This is an informal notation because \([\![u| \varphi ]\!]\subseteq \bigcup _{i\in I}[\![v_i|\psi _i ]\!]\) is not exactly a formula.

References

  1. Arusoaie, A., Lucanu, D.: Unification in matching logic. In: ter Beek, M.H., McIver, A., Oliveira, J.N. (eds.) FM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11800, pp. 502–518. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen, X., Roşu, G.: Applicative matching logic. Technical report (2019). http://hdl.handle.net/2142/104616. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  3. Chen, X., Rosu, G.: Matching \(\mu \)-logic. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2019), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1–13. IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2019.8785675

  4. Escobar, S., Sasse, R., Meseguer, J.: Folding variant narrowing and optimal variant termination. J. Log. Algebraic Program. 81(7–8), 898–928 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2012.01.002

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Futatsugi, K.: Fostering proof scores in CafeOBJ. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16901-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Goguen, J.A., Thatcher, J.W., Wagner, E.G.: An initial algebra approach to the specification, correctness, and implementation of abstract data types. Technical report. RC 6487, IBM Res. Rep (1976). See also Current Trends in Programming Methodology, vol. 4: Data Structuring, R. T. Yeh, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1978, 80–149 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Meseguer, J.: Variant-based satisfiability in initial algebras. Sci. Comput. Program. 154, 3–41 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2017.09.001

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Meseguer, J.: Generalized rewrite theories, coherence completion, and symbolic methods. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program. 110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlamp.2019.100483

  9. Meseguer, J.: Twenty years of rewriting logic. J. Log. Algebraic Program. 81(7), 721–781 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2012.06.003

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Roşu, G.: Matching logic. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 13(4), 1–61 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Skeirik, S., Stefanescu, A., Meseguer, J.: A constructor-based reachability logic for rewrite theories. In: Fioravanti, F., Gallagher, J.P. (eds.) LOPSTR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10855, pp. 201–217. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94460-9_12

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Tarski, A.: A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pac. J. Math. 5(2), 285–309 (1955)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaohong Chen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Chen, X., Lucanu, D., Roşu, G. (2020). Connecting Constrained Constructor Patterns and Matching Logic. In: Escobar, S., Martí-Oliet, N. (eds) Rewriting Logic and Its Applications. WRLA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12328. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63595-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63595-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-63594-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-63595-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics