Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

How Hard is it to Reason about Propositional Programs?

  • Conference paper
Program Design Calculi

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NATO ASI F,volume 118))

  • 194 Accesses

Abstract

We consider the difficulty of reasoning about schematic programs. The general framework is taken to be that of propositional dynamic logic (PDL), which is a natural extension of the propositional calculus, subsuming Hoare logic and various modal logics. Formulas in PDL can express a wide spectrum of statements about propositional programs, including correctness, termination and equivalence. One of the main interests in PDL stems from allowing the particular class of programs to vary. Examples include regular (iterative) programs, flowcharts, context-free (recursive) procedures, and concurrent versions thereof. As it turns out, the difficulty of deciding satisfiability of formulas in such logics can range from being NP-complete to being highly-undecidable.

The paper surveys and puts into perspective work carried out by many people over the last 16 years.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K. Abrahamson, Decidability and Expressiveness of Logics of Programs, Ph.D. thesis, Technical Report 80–08–01, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A.K. Chandra, D. Kozen and L. J. Stockmeyer, “Alternation”, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 28 (1981), 114–133

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. D. Drusinsky and D. Harel, “On the Power of Bounded Concurrency I: Finite Automata”, submitted. (Preliminary version appeared as “On the Power of Cooperative Concurrency”, Proc. Concurrency ‘88,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 335, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988, pp. 74–103.)

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Ehrenfeucht and P. Zeiger, “Complexity measures for regular expressions”, J. Comp. Sys. Sci. 12 (1976), 134–146.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. M. J. Fischer and R. E. Ladner, “Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs”, J. Comput. Sys. Sci. 18 (1979), 194–211.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. J. Y. Halpern and J. H. Reif, “The Propositional Dynamic Logic of Deterministic Well-Structured Programs”, Theor. Comput. Sci. 27 (1983), 127–165.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. GH] N. Globerman and D. Harel, “Succinctness Results for Multi-Pebble Automata”, in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. Harel, “Dynamic Logic”, in Handbook of Philosophical Logic Vol.II, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 497–603, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Harel, “Recurring Dominoes: Making the Highly Undecidable Highly Understandable”, Ann. Disc. Math. 24 (1985) 51–72.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. D. Harel, “Effective Transformations on Infinite Trees, with Applications to High Undecidability, Dominoes and Fairness”, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 33 (1986), 224–248.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. D. Harel and M. S. Paterson, “Undecidability of PDL with J. Comput. Sys. Sci. 29 (1984), 359–365.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. D. Harel, A. Pnueli, and J. Stavi, “Propositional Dynamic Logic of Nonregular Programs”, J. Comput. Sys. Sci. 26 (1983), 222–243.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Harel and D. Raz, “Deciding Properties of Nonregular Programs”, SIAM J. Comput.,to appear. (Preliminary version appeared in Proc. 31st IEEE Symp. Found. Comput. Sci.,IEEE Press, New York, pp. 652–661, 1990.)

    Google Scholar 

  14. HR2] D. Harel and D. Raz, “Deciding Emptiness for Stack Automata on Infinite Trees”, Inf. and Comput.,to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D.Harel, R. Rosner and M. Vardi, “On the Power of Bounded Concurrency III: Reasoning about Programs”, Proc. 5th Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Press, New York, pp. 479–488, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Harel and R. Sherman, “Propositional Dynamic Logic of Flowcharts”, Inf. and Cont. 64 (1985), 119–135.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. M. A. Harrison, Introduction to Formal Language Theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. C.A.R. Hoare, “Communicating Sequential Processes”, Comm. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 21 (1978), 666–677.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. J. E. Hoperoft and J. D. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T. Koren and A. Pnueli, “There Exist Decidable Context-Free Propositional Dynamic Logics”, Proc. Symp. on Logics of Programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 164, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 290–312, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D. Kozen and R. Parikh, “An Elementary Proof of the Completeness of PDL”, Theor. Comput. Sci. 14 (1982), 113–118.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. D. Kozen and J. Tiuryn, “Logics of Programs”, in Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, ( J. Van Leeuwen, ed.), Vol. B, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 789–840.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli, The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. A.R. Meyer and M. J. Fischer, “Economy of Description by Automata, Grammars, and Formal Systems”, Proc. 12th IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory, pp. 188–191, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  25. A.J. Mayer and L.J. Stockmeyer, “The Complexity of Word Problems - This Time With Interleaving”, IBM Report RJ 8947, IBM Research Division, San Jose, CA, Sept. 1992; Inf. and Comput.,to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  26. MS2] A.J. Mayer and L.J. Stockmeyer, private communication.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. Milner, A Calculus of Communicating Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 94, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. J. Parikh, “On context-free languages”, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 13 (1966), 570–581.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. V. R. Pratt, “Semantical Considerations on Floyd-Hoare Logic”, 17th IEEE. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci.,IEEE Press, New York, pp. 109–121, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  30. V. R. Pratt, “A Near Optimal Method for Reasoning about Action”, J. Comput. Sys. Sci. 20 (1980), 231–254.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. V.R. Pratt, “Using graphs to understand PDL”, Proc. Workshop on Logics of Programs (D.C. Kozen, ed.), Lec. Notes Comp. Sci. 131, Springer, 1981, pp. 387–396.

    Google Scholar 

  32. H. Rogers, Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. M.O. Rabin and D. Scott, “Finite Automata and Their Decision Problems”, IBM J. Res. 3 (1959), 115–125.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. M. Vardi, P. Wolper, “Automata-Theoretic Techniques for Modal Logics of Programs”, J. Comput. Sys. Sci. 32 (1986), 183–221.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    David Harel

Authors
  1. David Harel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Arcisstr. 21, D-80333, München, Germany

    Manfred Broy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Harel, D. (1993). How Hard is it to Reason about Propositional Programs?. In: Broy, M. (eds) Program Design Calculi. NATO ASI Series, vol 118. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02880-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02880-3_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-08164-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-02880-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics