Skip to main content

Program Schemata Technique to Solve Propositional Program Logics Revised

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 408 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9609))

Abstract

Propositional program (dynamic, temporal and process) logics are basis for logical specification of program systems (including parallel, distributed and multiagent systems). Therefore development of efficient algorithms (decision procedures) for validation, provability and model checking of program logics is an important research topic for the theory of programming.

The essence of a program schemata technique consists in the following. Formulas of a program logic to be translated into uninterpreted nondeterministic monadic flowcharts (so called Yanov schemata) so that the scheme is total (i.e. terminates) in all special interpretations if and only if the initial formula is a tautology (i.e. is identically true). Since this generalized halting problem is solvable (with an exponential complexity), it implies the decidability of initial program logic (and leads to a decidability upper bound).

The first version of the technique was developed by Nikolay V. Shilov and Valery A. Nepomnjaschy in 1983–1987 for variants of Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL). In 1997 the technique was expanded on the propositional \(\mu \)-Calculus. In both cases a special algorithm was used to solve the generalized halting problem.

A recent development of program schemata technique consists in revised decision procedure for the halting problem. A new decision procedure consists in model checking of a special fairness property (presented by some fixed \(\mu \)-Calculus formula) in finite models presented by Yanov schemata flowcharts. Exponential lower bound for transformation of \(\mu \)-Calculus formulas to equivalent guarded form is a consequence of the new version of the decision procedure.

This work is supported by the RFBR-grant # 13-01-00645-a.

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

Buying options

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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An instance of a subformula is said to be negative if it is in the scope of odd number of negations; otherwise the instance is said to be positive.

  2. 2.

    An instance of a variable x is said to be bound if it is in the scope of \(\mu x\) or \(\nu x\); otherwise it is said to be free.

  3. 3.

    The definition implies that all bound variable within a formula must be different.

  4. 4.

    i.e. both are simultaneously propositional variables, program variables, formulas, etc.

  5. 5.

    Hereafter we use ‘\(\equiv \)’ for syntax identity, but ‘\(=\)’ for (set-theoretic) equality.

  6. 6.

    Acronym upd stays for update, i.e. the following second-order function modifier: for any function \(f:X\times Y\), elements \(x\in X\) and \(y\in Y\) let \(upd(f,x,y) = \lambda z\in X.\ if\ z=x\ then\ y\ else\ f(y)\).

  7. 7.

    We need the corollary for justification of some statements in the paper.

  8. 8.

    Alternative spelling: Ianov.

  9. 9.

    i.e. a construct that bounds another variable.

  10. 10.

    i.e. that are not in use neither in \(\phi \) nor in \(\psi \).

  11. 11.

    i.e. a formula without instances of modality \([\dots ]\).

  12. 12.

    Let us assume that notation for number representation is fixed.

  13. 13.

    Let us use the standard representation for finite sets: \(\varnothing \) for the empty set and elements enumerated in a pair of curly parenthesis ‘\(\{\)’ and ‘\(\}\)’.

  14. 14.

    These labels are called final labels of the scheme.

  15. 15.

    Recall that \(\theta \) is the empty word.

  16. 16.

    i.e. it has a finite complete run.

  17. 17.

    maybe the same operator where the path starts.

  18. 18.

    AF means Always in Future is a modality from Computation Tree Logic CTL [2].

References

  1. Bruse, F., Friedmann, O., Lange, M.: Guarded Transformation for the Modal mu-Calculus (2013). arXiv:1305.0648v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0648

  2. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Moedel Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.J.: The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. SIAM J. Comput. 29, 132–158 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ershov, A.P.: Origins of Programming: Discourses on Methodology. Springer, New York (1990)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Ianov, Y.I.: The logical schemes of algorithms. In: Lyapunov, A.A., Goodman, R., Booth, A.D. (eds.) Problems of Cybernetics, vol. I, pp. 82–140. Pergamon Press, New York (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kotov, V.E., Sabelfeld, V.K.: Theory of Program Schemata. Nauka Publeshers, Moscow (1991). (In Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional Mu-calculus. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 27, 333–354 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Nepomniaschy, V.A., Shilov, N.V.: Non-deterministic program schemata, their relation to dynamic logic. In: International Conference on Mathematical Logic and its Applications, pp. 137–147. Plenum Press, New York (1987). (Revised version: Cybernetics 24(3), 285–293 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Podlovchenko, R.I.: A.A. Lyapunov and A.P. Ershov in the theory of program schemes and the development of its logic concepts. In: Bjørner, D., Broy, M., Zamulin, A.V. (eds.) PSI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2244, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Shilov, N.V.: Program schemata vs. automata for decidability of program logics. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 175, 15–27 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Shilov, N.V.: An approach to design of automata-based axiomatization for propositional program, temporal logics (by example of linear temporal logic). In: Logic, Computation, Hierarchies. Ontos Mathematical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 297–324. Ontos-Verlag/De Gruyter, Germany (2014)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Walukiewicz, I.: A complete deductive system for the mu-calculus. In: Proceedings of IEEE LICS 1993, pp. 136–147 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Walukiewicz, I.: Completeness of Kozen’s axiomatisation of the propositional Mu-calculus. Inf. Comput. 157, 142–182 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolay Shilov .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Shilov, N. (2016). Program Schemata Technique to Solve Propositional Program Logics Revised. In: Mazzara, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Perspectives of System Informatics. PSI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9609. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41579-6_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41579-6_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41578-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41579-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics