Combining Propositional Dynamic Logic with Formal Concept Analysis
|
|
- Calvin Allen
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Proc. CS&P '06 Combining Propositional Dynamic Logic with Formal Concept Analysis (extended abstract) N.V. Shilov, N.O. Garanina, and I.S. Anureev A.P. Ershov Institute of Informatics Systems, Lavren ev av., 6, Novosibirsk , Russia, {shilov, garanina, Abstract. Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL) has been introduced by M.J. Fischer and R.E. Ladner as an extension of the classical propositional logic and propositional modal logic K for reasoning about partial correctness of structured nondeterministic programs. Many variants of PDL have been studied extensively especially from viewpoint of decidability and axiomatizability. In particular, recently C. Lutz and D. Walther proved that PDL with complement (negation) of atomic programs is decidable in exponential time (while it is well known that in general case PDL with complement is undecidable). In this paper we introduce and study a new variant of PDL extended by modalities inspirited by Formal Concept Analyses (FCA) of R. Wille and B. Ganter. Formal semantics of these two new modalities is intent and, respectively, extent operations (two major algebraic constructions of FCA). Informal meaning and utility of these modalities can be illustrated by the following simple example. Assume that P and G are sets of states of a computer system, A is a binary relation between states: xay means that y is reachable from x. Then sentence From every state in P the system can reach some state in G can be expressed in PDL by P A G. Another sentence From any state in P the system can not reach any state outside G can be expressed in PDL also as P [A]G. But sentences From every state in P the system can reach every state in G and Every state in G is reachable by the system from every state in P can not be expressed in PDL, but can be expressed in PDL extended by new modalities for intent and extent. We call PDL extended by new modalities for intent and extent by PDL for FCA. We denote this logic by PDL/FCA. We demonstrate in this paper that PDL/FCA is more expressive than PDL. Then we interpret a fragment of PDL/FCA without intent in PDL with complement. It implies decidability of PDL extended by extent of atomic programs with exponential upper bound. It remains an open problem whether PDL/FCA (without any restriction for intent and extent) is decidable and what the expressive power of this new logic is with respect to PDL with complement. This research is supported in parts by joint grant RFBR a - DFG project COMO, GZ: 436 RUS 113/829/0-1, by grant RFBR a, and Integration Grant n.14 Siberia Branch, Russian Academy of Science. 152
2 Part 2: Specification 1 Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL) Propositional Dynamic Logic has been introduced in [1]. It has become popular due to its utility for specification and verification of program systems since it enjoys decidability and has a nice axiomatization [3, 4]. Below we start with definition of PDL syntax. Definition 1. Let Act and V ar be disjoint alphabets of action symbols and propositional variables. Syntax of PDL consists of the set of programs P rg and the set of formulas F rm. Both sets are defined by mutual induction. 1. Programs: (a) every action symbol is an (elementary) program (i.e. Act P rg); (b) if α and β are programs then sequential composition (α; β), non-deterministic choice (α β), and non-deterministic iteration (α ) are programs 1 ; (c) if φ is a formula then φ? is a program that is called test. 2. Formulas: (a) special symbols true and f alse are formulas; (b) every propositional variable is an (elementary) formula, (i.e. V ar F rm); (c) if φ and ψ are formulas then negation ( φ), conjunction (φ ψ), and disjunction (φ ψ) are formulas 2 ; (d) if α is a program and φ is a formula then pre-image ( α φ) and precondition ([α]φ) are formulas 3. Semantics of PDL is defined in models that are called Kripke models or Labeled Transition Systems. Definition 2. Transition system (or Kripke frame) is a pair (D, R) where D is called universe (or domain ) and whose elements are called worlds (or states ), R : Act 2 D D is called interpretation that interprets every action symbol a Act by a binary relation R(a) D D. Label transition system (LTS) (or Kripke model) is a triple (D, R, I) where (D, R) is a transition system, and I : V ar 2 D which is called valuation and that evaluates every propositional variable by a set of states. 1 These programs are read as follows: (α; β) α then β, (α β) α or β, (α ) iterate α. 2 These formulas are read as usual. Implication (φ ψ) and equivalence (φ ψ) are admissible as standard abbreviations. 3 These formulas are read as follows: ([α]φ) α-box φ or after α always φ, ( α φ) α-diamond φ or after α sometimes φ 153
3 Proc. CS&P '06 Definition 3. Let M = (D, R, I) be a model. Semantics of every program γ P rg in M is a binary relation M(γ) D D that is called input-output relation of γ in M. Semantics of every formula ξ F rm is a set of states M(ξ) D that is called validity set of ξ in M. Input-output relations and validity sets are defined by mutual induction. 1. Programs: (a) for every action symbol a Act, M(a) = R(a); (b) for all programs α, β P rg, M(α; β) = M(α) M(β) where is composition of binary relations, M(α β) = M(α) M(β) where right-hand side is set-theoretic union of binary relations, and M(α ) = (M(α)) where right-hand side * is reflexive and transitive closure of binary relations; (c) for every formula phi F rm, M(φ?) = {(s, s) : s M(φ)}. For every program α P rg and all states s, t D let us write s α M t and say that α transforms (input) s to (output) t in M iff (s, t) M(α). 2. Formulas: (a) M(true) = D and M(false) = ; (b) for every propositional variable p V ar, M(p) = I(p); (c) for all formulas φ, ψ F rm, M( φ) = D \ M(φ) where \ is the settheoretic set-minus, M(φ ψ) = M(φ) M(ψ) where is the settheoretic intersection, and M(φ ψ) = M(φ) M(ψ) where is the set-theoretic union; (d) for every program α P rg and formula φ F rm, M( α φ) = {s : for some t D, (s, t) M(α) and t M(φ)}, M([α]φ) = {s : for every t D, if (s, t) M(α) then t M(φ)}. For every formula φ F rm and every state s D let us write s = M φ and say that φ holds in/at s in M iff sinm(φ). Definition 4. For every formula φ F rm and every model M = (D, R, I) let us write M = φ and say that φ is valid in M iff s = M φ for every s D. For every formula φ F rm let us write = φ and say that φ is a tautology iff M = φ for every model M. PDL was introduced in Later many variants of PDL have been studied. Many of these variants simply extend set of programs by some special program constructs. We are most interested in the following auxiliary program constructs. Definition 5. A variant of PDL is a language L whose syntax consists of two parts: programs P rg L and formulas F rm L. Semantics of L is defined in models: in every model M = (D, R, I) the semantics of every program α P rg L is a binary relation M(α) D D, the semantics of every formula φ F rm L is a set M(φ) D. A variant L of PDL is said to be an extension of PDL, iff P rg L P rg and F rm L F rm. Definition 6. Let L be a variant of PDL. Then let L be a variant of PDL that is the closure of L with respect to a new program constructor for the inverse. Syntax of the construct follows: for every program α the inverse (α ) is 154
4 Part 2: Specification a program too. Also let L c be a variant of PDL that is closure of L with respect to a new program constructor for the complement (or program negation). Syntax of the construct follows: for every program α the inverse (α c ) is a program too. For every model M = (D, R, I), for every program α, M(α ) = M(α) where right-hand side is the set-theoretic inverse of binary relations 4, M(α c ) = M(α) c where right-hand side c is the set-theoretic complement of binary relations 56. In particular, PDL is an extension of PDL where programs are constructed from action symbols and tests with aid of sequential composition ;, non-deterministic choice, non-deterministic iteration *, and inverse ; PDL c is an extension of PDL where programs are constructed from action symbols and tests with aid of sequential composition ;, non-deterministic choice, non-deterministic iteration *, and complement c ; PDL c is an extension of PDL where programs are constructed from action symbols and tests with aid of sequential composition ;, non-deterministic choice, non-deterministic iteration *, inverse, and complement c. 2 Expressive power of PDL variants Definition 7. Let L 1 and L 2 be two variants of PDL. For programs α 1 in L 1 and α 2 in L 2 let us say that they are equivalent and write α 1 α 2 iff for every model M both programs have the same semantics, i.e. M(α 1 ) = M(α 2 ). For formulas φ 1 in L 1 and φ 2 in L 2 let us say that they are equivalent and write φ 1 φ 2 iff for every model M both formulas have the same semantics, i.e. M(φ 1 ) = M(φ 2 ). Observe that programs α and β are equivalent iff formulas ( α p) and ( β p) are equivalent 7 ; formulas φ and ψ are equivalent iff formula (φ ψ) is a tautology. Definition 8. Let L 1 and L 2 be two variants of PDL. Let us write L 1 L 2 and say that L 1 is expressible in L 2 iff for every formula φ in L 1 there exists an equivalent formula ψ in L 2. Let us write L 2 L 1 and say that L 2 can express L 1 iff L 1 L 2. Let us write L 1 < L 2 and say that L 1 is less expressive than L 2 iff L 1 L 2 but it is not the case L 2 L 1. Let us write L 2 > L 1 and say 4 For every binary relation R D D the inverse R is {(s, t) : (t, s) R}. 5 For every binary relation R D D the complement R c is {(s, t) : (s, t) R}. 6 Sometimes prefix is used instead of postfix superscript c, i.e. ( α) instead of (α c ). 7 Here p V ar is a fresh propositional variable. 155
5 Proc. CS&P '06 that L 2 is more expressive than L 1 iff L 1 < L 2. Let us write L 1 e = L2 and say that L 1 and L 2 have equal expressive power iff L 1 L 2 and L 2 L 1. Let us say that L 1 and L 2 are incompatible (in expressive power) iff neither of L 1 L 2 nor L 2 L 1 holds. It implies that the expressive power of the extensions of PDL can be represented by the diagram depicted in Figure 1, where every arrow represents between logics. PDL c? PDL?? PDL c PDL Fig. 1. Expressive power of PDL variants Proposition 1. If alphabets Act and V ar are non-empty then for all logics L 1, L 2 in Fig. 1 if there is a non-marked arrow from L 1 to L 2 then L 1 L 2 ; if there is no any 8 arrow from L 1 to L 2 then L 1 L 2 is invalid. (Arrows marked by? from PDL c to PDL and from PDL c to PDL c represent that we do not know whether PDL c PDL and PDL c PDL c.) Proof. First we observe that all non-marked arrows in Fig. 1 are inherited from inclusions for the corresponding classes of programs. Then let us prove that any logic L 2 with program complement can not be expressed in any logic L 1 without program complement. We observe that the least expressive logic with complement is PDL c, while the most expressive logic without complement is PDL. M 1: M 2: s t: p s 8 marked by? or non-marked Fig.2. Models that disprove PDL c PDL 156
6 Part 2: Specification Let a Act and p V ar be an action symbol and a propositional variable, respectively. Let us prove that formula ( a c p) is not expressible in PDL and any other logic without compliment. For it let us consider models M 1 and M 2 depicted in Fig. 2. In both models action symbol a is interpreted by empty binary relation. Propositional variable p is evaluated by {t} in the first model M 1. It is trivial to prove by induction on the structure of complement-free programs and complement-free formulas that s α M1 s iff s α M1 s, never s α M1 t, s = M1 φ iff s = M2 φ. At the same time s = M1 ( a c p) but not s = M2 ( a c p). Hence ( a c p) is not equivalent to any complement-free formula. It proves that neither PDL c nor PDL c can be expressed in PDL and in PDL. Finally let us remark that remaining proof (that PDL can not express PDL ) is very similar to the above proof but uses a modified model M 3 instead of M 1. It differs from M 1 by interpretation of action symbol a : I 3 (a) = {(t, s)}. It is well-know that PDL and PDL are decidable with exponential upper and lower bounds, while PDL c and PDL c are undecidable [3, 4]. It has been proved recently that a fragment of PDL c where complement is applied only to action symbols is decidable with exponential upper bound [6]. It worth to remark that it has been proved recently that an interesting fragment of PDL c, namely PDL with program inverse and program intersection PDL, is also decidable (but with a non-elementary upper bound) [5]. 3 Integrating FCA operations to PDL Basic Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) definitions below follow monograph [2]. Definition 9. A formal context is a triple (O, A, B) where O and A are sets of objects and attributes respectively and B O A is a binary relation on objects and attributes. Let us say that a formal context (O, A, B) is homogeneous 9 iff O = A, i.e. the set of objects coincide with the set of attributes. For example, for every model M = (D, R, I) and every program α one can define a formal context C(M, α) = (D, D, M(α)), where sets of objects O and of attributes A are equal to the domain D, and the binary relation B is simply input-output relation M(α). Vise verse, there is a number of ways how to define a frame for given formal contexts. For example, if we are given a family of formal contexts (O j, A j, B j ) with object set O j, attribute set A j, and binary relation B j O j A j are indexed by elements of some set J, then one can adopt the set of indexes J as the alphabet Act of action symbols, and define a frame (D, R) where D = j J (O j A j ) and R(j) = B j (O j A j ) D D for every j J. Two basic algebraic operations for formal contexts are intent and extent. 9 Homogenous is our own non-standard FCA term. 157
7 Proc. CS&P '06 Definition 10. Let (O, A, B) be a formal context. For every set of objects X O its upper derivation (or intent) X is the following set of attributes {t A : for every s O, if s X then (s, t) B}, i.e. the collection of all attributes that have all objects in X simultaneously. For every set of attributes Y A its lower derivation (or extent) Y is the following set of objects {s O : for every t A, if t Y then (s, t) B}, i.e. the collection of all objects that have all attributes in Y simultaneously. For example, let M = (D, R, I) be a labeled transition system, α, φ, and ψ be a program and two formulas of some variant of PDL. In accordance with definition of semantics of PDL variants, M(α) is a binary relation A D D on states, and M(φ) and M(ψ) are some sets P D and G D of states. In particular, D can be some community (at some moment of time), P and G can be two groups of people in this community, and A can be acquaintance relation between people: xay means that person x knows person y. In this particular example, M = (φ [a]ψ) iff every person in P does not know any person outside G. Unfortunately, it is impossible to express by any PDL formula the following property: all persons in G are known simultaneously to all persons in P. But this property can be expressed easily in set-theoretic terms with aid of intent operation G P in the homogenous formal context (D, D, M(α)). Similarly, it is impossible to express by any PDL formula another property: all persons in P know simultaneously all persons in G. Again this property can be expressed easily in set-theoretic terms with aid of extent operation P G in the same homogenous formal context. Alternatively, D can be the state-space of some program, P and G can be two sets of states in D, A can be reachability relation between states: xay means that y is reachable from x. In this particular example, M = (φ [a]ψ) iff from any state in P the program can not reach any state outside G. Unfortunately, it is impossible to express by PDL formula the following two properties: from every state in P the program can reach every state in G; every state in G is reachable by the program from every state in P. But these properties can be expressed easy in set-theoretic terms with aid of intent and extent operations as G P and P G respectively in the homogenous formal context (D, D, M(a)). The above examples that illustrate utility of intent and extent operations for reasoning about systems of different kinds (people in some community, states of a program, etc.) move us to the following definition that integrates intent and extent to PDL. Definition 11. Let L be a variant of PDL. Then let L/FCA be a variant of PDL that is the closure of L with respect to two new formula constructors for 158
8 Part 2: Specification intent and extent. Syntax of these two constructors follows: for every program α and every formula φ let (φ α ) and (φ α ) be formulas too. These formulas are read as intent of φ with respect to α and, respectively, as extent of φ with respect to α. For every model M = (D, R, I), M(φ α ) = {t : for every s D, if s M(φ) then (s, t) M(α)}, i.e. the intent of M(φ) in a homogenous formal context (D, D, M(α)); M(φ α ) = {s : for every t D, if t M(φ) then (s, t) M(α)}, i.e. the extent of M(φ) in a homogenous formal context (D, D, M(α)). In particular, PDL/FCA is an extension of PDL where intent and extent constructors are allowed. Observe that semantics of two new formula constructs is contraposition of semantics of formulas that are allowed in PDL. Compare the above semantics of φ α and φ α with semantics of ([α]φ) and ([α ]φ): M([α ]φ) = {t : for every s D, if (s, t) M(α) then s M(φ)}, M([α]φ) = {s : for every t D, if (s, t) M(a) then t M(φ)}. Proposition 2. Let L be a variant of PDL. For every program and every formula within L, for every model M = (D, R, I) the following semantic equalities hold: 1. M( (φ α )) = M( α c ψ), 2. M(φ α ) = M([α c ]( ψ)), 3. M( (φ α )) = M( α c ψ), 4. M(φ α ) = M([α c ]( ψ)). Proof. Observe that clause 2 follows from 1, and 4 - follows from 3. Thus we can concentrate on clauses 1 and 3 only. 1. M( (φ α )) = D \ {t : for every s D, if s M(φ) then (s, t) M(α)} = = {t : for some s D, s M(φ) and (s, t) M(α)} = = {t : for some s D, s M(φ) and (s, t) M(α c )} = = {t : for some s D, s M(φ) and (t, s) M(α c )} = M( α c ψ). 3. M( (φ α )) = D \ {s : for every t D, if t M(φ) then (s, t) M(α)} = = {s : for some t D, t M(φ) and (s, t) M(α)} = = {s : for some t D, t M(φ) and (s, t) M(α c )} = M( α c ψ). The proof of Proposition 1 and the above Proposition 2 have some immediate but important implications that we present in the following corollary. Corollary Let L be a variant of PDL. For every program and every formula within L the following semantic equivalencies hold: (a) (φ α ) α c ψ, 159
9 Proc. CS&P '06 (b) φ α [α c ]( ψ), (c) (φ α ) α c ψ, (d) φ α [α c ]( ψ). 2. PDL < PDL/FCA PDL c so that every formula φ in PDL/FCA is equivalent to some formula ψ in PDL c that can be constructed in linear time, and all complement c and inverse constructs occur in ψ only at outmost level 10 in combinations c and c only 11, and these combinations are applied in ψ to programs which are used in φ with extent and intent constructors respectively. In turn the above Corollary 1 and decidability of PDL c where complement is applied to action symbols [6] imply the next corollary. Corollary 2. PDL/FCA without intent is expressible in PDL c so that every formula φ in PDL/FCA without intent is equivalent to some formula ψ in PDL c that can be constructed in linear time, and all complement c constructs occur in ψ only at outmost level and are applied in to programs which are used in φ with extent constructors respectively. In particular, PDL extended by extent of action symbols is decidable with exponential upper bound and is expressible in PDL c where complement c construct is applied to action symbols only. Topics for further research: Unfortunately, we do not know exact expressive power of PDL/FCA in comparison with PDL c and/or PDL c as well as whether PDL/FCA is decidable or not. We guess that PDL/FCA is less expressive than PDL c and is interpretable in PDL c. We think that PDL extended by both intent and extent of action symbols is decidable with exponential upper bound due to its interpretability in PDL c where complement c construct is applied to action symbols only. We also hope to develop and present more detailed and interesting examples (than in this section) that motivate an utility of intent/extent constructs for program specification and verification. Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Prof. Karl Erich Wolff for fruitful discussions of the research and the draft of this paper. References 1. Fischer M.J. and Ladner R.E. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 18(2): , Ganter B., Wille R. Formal Concept Analysis. Mathematical Foundations. Springer Verlag, Harel D. Dynamic logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic Volume II, Reidel Publishing Company, p , Harel D., Kozen D., Tiuryn J. Dynamic Logic (Foundations of Computing). MIT Press, i.e. not inside programs 11 i.e. c can occur without -, but - can not occur without c 160
10 Part 2: Specification 5. Lutz C. PDL with intersection and converse is decidable. In Proceedings of CSL 05, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3634: , Springer, Lutz C. and Walther D. PDL with Negation of Atomic Programs. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 15(2): ,
On Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions
arxiv:cs/0407031v1 [cs.lo] 12 Jul 2004 On Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions Pavel Naumov Computer Science Pennsylvania State University Middletown, PA 17057 naumov@psu.edu June 14, 2018 Abstract
More informationProgram Schemata Technique to Solve Propositional Program Logics Revised
Program Schemata Technique to Solve Propositional Program Logics Revised Nikolay Shilov A.P. Ershov Institute of Informatics Systems, Russian Academy of Sciences Lavren ev av. 6, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia
More informationof concurrent and reactive systems is now well developed [2] as well as a deductive methodology for proving their properties [3]. Part of the reason f
A New Decidability Proof for Full Branching Time Logic CPL N.V. Shilov Research On Program Analysis System (ROPAS) Department of Computer Science Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)
More informationPropositional Dynamic Logic
Propositional Dynamic Logic Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Syntax and Semantics 2 2.1 Syntax................................. 2 2.2 Semantics............................... 2 3 Hilbert-style axiom system
More informationSyntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic
Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Linear Temporal Logic 1 Defining Logics L, M, = L - the language of the logic M - a class of models = - satisfaction relation M M, ϕ L: M = ϕ is read as M satisfies
More informationECE473 Lecture 15: Propositional Logic
ECE473 Lecture 15: Propositional Logic Jeffrey Mark Siskind School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Spring 2018 Siskind (Purdue ECE) ECE473 Lecture 15: Propositional Logic Spring 2018 1 / 23 What
More informationTheoretical Foundations of the UML
Theoretical Foundations of the UML Lecture 17+18: A Logic for MSCs Joost-Pieter Katoen Lehrstuhl für Informatik 2 Software Modeling and Verification Group moves.rwth-aachen.de/teaching/ws-1718/fuml/ 5.
More informationIntroduction to Kleene Algebra Lecture 15 CS786 Spring 2004 March 15 & 29, 2004
Introduction to Kleene Algebra Lecture 15 CS786 Spring 2004 March 15 & 29, 2004 Completeness of KAT In this lecture we show that the equational theories of the Kleene algebras with tests and the star-continuous
More informationAutomata, Logic and Games: Theory and Application
Automata, Logic and Games: Theory and Application 1. Büchi Automata and S1S Luke Ong University of Oxford TACL Summer School University of Salerno, 14-19 June 2015 Luke Ong Büchi Automata & S1S 14-19 June
More informationOn the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs
On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs Nikolai V. Krupski Department of Math. Logic and the Theory of Algorithms, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899,
More informationAdding Modal Operators to the Action Language A
Adding Modal Operators to the Action Language A Aaron Hunter Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 1S6 amhunter@cs.sfu.ca Abstract The action language A is a simple high-level language for describing
More informationChapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics
Chapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics Language : L {,,, }. Classical Semantics assumptions: TWO VALUES: there are only two logical values: truth (T) and false (F), and EXTENSIONALITY: the logical
More informationLecture 2: Syntax. January 24, 2018
Lecture 2: Syntax January 24, 2018 We now review the basic definitions of first-order logic in more detail. Recall that a language consists of a collection of symbols {P i }, each of which has some specified
More informationLearning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation
Learning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation Alice Gao April 27, 2018 Contents 1 Propositional Logic 2 2 Predicate Logic 4 3 Program Verification 6 4 Undecidability 7 1 1 Propositional Logic Introduction
More informationDescription Logics. Foundations of Propositional Logic. franconi. Enrico Franconi
(1/27) Description Logics Foundations of Propositional Logic Enrico Franconi franconi@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ franconi Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester (2/27) Knowledge
More informationIntroduction to Temporal Logic. The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either
Introduction to Temporal Logic The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either Desired properites. Often liveness properties like In every infinite run action
More information02 Propositional Logic
SE 2F03 Fall 2005 02 Propositional Logic Instructor: W. M. Farmer Revised: 25 September 2005 1 What is Propositional Logic? Propositional logic is the study of the truth or falsehood of propositions or
More informationA generalization of modal definability
A generalization of modal definability Tin Perkov Polytechnic of Zagreb Abstract. Known results on global definability in basic modal logic are generalized in the following sense. A class of Kripke models
More informationDesign of Distributed Systems Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth
Design of Distributed Systems Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth Design of Distributed Systems Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth Publication date 2014 Copyright 2014 Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth Supported by TÁMOP-412A/1-11/1-2011-0052
More informationCHAPTER 11. Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic
CHAPTER 11 Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic Intuitionistic logic has developed as a result of certain philosophical views on the foundation of mathematics, known as intuitionism. Intuitionism was originated
More informationLogic: Propositional Logic (Part I)
Logic: Propositional Logic (Part I) Alessandro Artale Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science http://www.inf.unibz.it/ artale Descrete Mathematics and Logic BSc course Thanks to Prof.
More informationReasoning About Common Knowledge with Infinitely Many Agents
Reasoning About Common Knowledge with Infinitely Many Agents Joseph Y. Halpern Computer Science Department Cornell University halpern@cs.cornell.edu Richard A. Shore Mathematics Department Cornell University
More informationPropositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34
Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment p. 1/34 Reading The background reading for propositional logic is Chapter 1 of Huth/Ryan. (This will cover approximately the first three lectures.)
More informationMathematical Logic Propositional Logic - Tableaux*
Mathematical Logic Propositional Logic - Tableaux* Fausto Giunchiglia and Mattia Fumagalli University of Trento *Originally by Luciano Serafini and Chiara Ghidini Modified by Fausto Giunchiglia and Mattia
More informationcse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018
cse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics CHAPTER 7 SLIDES Slides Set 1 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics
More informationCHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS
CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS 1 Language There are several propositional languages that are routinely called classical propositional logic languages. It is due to the functional dependency
More informationFormale Systeme II: Theorie
Formale Systeme II: Theorie Dynamic Logic: Propositional Dynamic Logic SS 2018 Prof. Dr. Bernhard Beckert Dr. Mattias Ulbrich Slides partially by Prof. Dr. Peter H. Schmitt KIT Die Forschungsuniversität
More informationNeighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5
Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5 Eric Pacuit ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit August 17, 2007 Eric Pacuit: Neighborhood Semantics, Lecture 5 1 Plan for the
More informationExistential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations
Existential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations preprint Lauri Hella University of Tampere Antti Kuusisto University of Bremen Abstract This article investigates
More information185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic
185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic www.volny.cz/behounek/logic/teaching/mathlog13 Libor Běhounek, behounek@cs.cas.cz Lecture #1, October 15, 2013 Organizational matters Study materials will be posted
More informationTableau-based decision procedures for the logics of subinterval structures over dense orderings
Tableau-based decision procedures for the logics of subinterval structures over dense orderings Davide Bresolin 1, Valentin Goranko 2, Angelo Montanari 3, and Pietro Sala 3 1 Department of Computer Science,
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - V
Propositional and Predicate Logic - V Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2016/2017 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - V WS 2016/2017 1 / 21 Formal proof systems Hilbert s calculus
More informationSyntactic Characterisations in Model Theory
Department of Mathematics Bachelor Thesis (7.5 ECTS) Syntactic Characterisations in Model Theory Author: Dionijs van Tuijl Supervisor: Dr. Jaap van Oosten June 15, 2016 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Preliminaries
More informationFormal Epistemology: Lecture Notes. Horacio Arló-Costa Carnegie Mellon University
Formal Epistemology: Lecture Notes Horacio Arló-Costa Carnegie Mellon University hcosta@andrew.cmu.edu Logical preliminaries Let L 0 be a language containing a complete set of Boolean connectives, including
More informationTecniche di Verifica. Introduction to Propositional Logic
Tecniche di Verifica Introduction to Propositional Logic 1 Logic A formal logic is defined by its syntax and semantics. Syntax An alphabet is a set of symbols. A finite sequence of these symbols is called
More informationTR : Binding Modalities
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Computer Science Technical Reports Graduate Center 2012 TR-2012011: Binding Modalities Sergei N. Artemov Tatiana Yavorskaya (Sidon) Follow this and
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic III
An Introduction to Modal Logic III Soundness of Normal Modal Logics Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, October 24 th 2013 Marco Cerami
More informationHalting and Equivalence of Program Schemes in Models of Arbitrary Theories
Halting and Equivalence of Program Schemes in Models of Arbitrary Theories Dexter Kozen Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7501, USA, kozen@cs.cornell.edu, http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~kozen In Honor
More informationPDL WITH INTERSECTION AND CONVERSE: SATISFIABILITY AND INFINITE-STATE MODEL CHECKING
The Journal of Symbolic Logic Volume 00, Number 0, XXX 0000 PDL WITH INTERSECTION AND CONVERSE: SATISFIABILITY AND INFINITE-STATE MODEL CHECKING STEFAN GÖLLER, MARKUS LOHREY, AND CARSTEN LUTZ Abstract.
More informationNeighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 3
Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 3 Eric Pacuit ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit August 15, 2007 Eric Pacuit: Neighborhood Semantics, Lecture 3 1 Plan for the
More informationPrinciples of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Modal Logics Bernhard Nebel, Malte Helmert and Stefan Wölfl Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg May 2 & 6, 2008 Nebel, Helmert, Wölfl (Uni Freiburg)
More informationModal Logic. UIT2206: The Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. March 19, 2014
Modal Logic UIT2206: The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz March 19, 2014 1 Motivation The source of meaning of formulas in the previous chapters were models. Once a particular model is chosen, say
More informationModal logics and their semantics
Modal logics and their semantics Joshua Sack Department of Mathematics and Statistics, California State University Long Beach California State University Dominguez Hills Feb 22, 2012 Relational structures
More informationA Propositional Dynamic Logic for Instantial Neighborhood Semantics
A Propositional Dynamic Logic for Instantial Neighborhood Semantics Johan van Benthem, Nick Bezhanishvili, Sebastian Enqvist Abstract We propose a new perspective on logics of computation by combining
More informationThe State Explosion Problem
The State Explosion Problem Martin Kot August 16, 2003 1 Introduction One from main approaches to checking correctness of a concurrent system are state space methods. They are suitable for automatic analysis
More informationAdvanced Topics in LP and FP
Lecture 1: Prolog and Summary of this lecture 1 Introduction to Prolog 2 3 Truth value evaluation 4 Prolog Logic programming language Introduction to Prolog Introduced in the 1970s Program = collection
More informationNested Epistemic Logic Programs
Nested Epistemic Logic Programs Kewen Wang 1 and Yan Zhang 2 1 Griffith University, Australia k.wang@griffith.edu.au 2 University of Western Sydney yan@cit.uws.edu.au Abstract. Nested logic programs and
More informationTutorial Exercises 1 (mjs)
499 Modal and Temporal Logic Autumn 2008 Tutorial Exercises 1 (mjs) 1. Suppose that Σ is closed under RM. SOLUTIONS Suppose first that Σ contains C. A derivation of K: 1. Σ (A (A B) ) B PL 2. Σ (A (A B)
More informationHandbook of Logic and Proof Techniques for Computer Science
Steven G. Krantz Handbook of Logic and Proof Techniques for Computer Science With 16 Figures BIRKHAUSER SPRINGER BOSTON * NEW YORK Preface xvii 1 Notation and First-Order Logic 1 1.1 The Use of Connectives
More informationModel Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 1: A brief introduction to modal logic. Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark
Model Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 1: A brief introduction to modal logic Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark Third Indian School on Logic and its Applications Hyderabad, 25 January, 2010
More informationAutomata Theory and Formal Grammars: Lecture 1
Automata Theory and Formal Grammars: Lecture 1 Sets, Languages, Logic Automata Theory and Formal Grammars: Lecture 1 p.1/72 Sets, Languages, Logic Today Course Overview Administrivia Sets Theory (Review?)
More informationIntroduction to Kleene Algebra Lecture 14 CS786 Spring 2004 March 15, 2004
Introduction to Kleene Algebra Lecture 14 CS786 Spring 2004 March 15, 2004 KAT and Hoare Logic In this lecture and the next we show that KAT subsumes propositional Hoare logic (PHL). Thus the specialized
More informationApplied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw
Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018
More informationLecture 8: Introduction to Game Logic
Lecture 8: Introduction to Game Logic Eric Pacuit ILLC, University of Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit epacuit@science.uva.nl Lecture Date: April 6, 2006 Caput Logic, Language and Information: Social
More informationCompleteness for coalgebraic µ-calculus: part 2. Fatemeh Seifan (Joint work with Sebastian Enqvist and Yde Venema)
Completeness for coalgebraic µ-calculus: part 2 Fatemeh Seifan (Joint work with Sebastian Enqvist and Yde Venema) Overview Overview Completeness of Kozen s axiomatisation of the propositional µ-calculus
More informationPhase 1. Phase 2. Phase 3. History. implementation of systems based on incomplete structural subsumption algorithms
History Phase 1 implementation of systems based on incomplete structural subsumption algorithms Phase 2 tableau-based algorithms and complexity results first tableau-based systems (Kris, Crack) first formal
More informationT Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL
Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 1 T-79.186 Reactive Systems: Temporal Logic LTL Spring 2005, Lecture 4 January 31, 2005 Tik-79.186 Reactive Systems 2 Temporal Logics Temporal logics are currently the most
More informationA SEQUENT SYSTEM OF THE LOGIC R FOR ROSSER SENTENCES 2. Abstract
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 33/1 (2004), pp. 11 21 Katsumi Sasaki 1 Shigeo Ohama A SEQUENT SYSTEM OF THE LOGIC R FOR ROSSER SENTENCES 2 Abstract To discuss Rosser sentences, Guaspari and Solovay
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - II
Propositional and Predicate Logic - II Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2016/2017 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - II WS 2016/2017 1 / 16 Basic syntax Language Propositional logic
More informationLOGIC OF CLASSICAL REFUTABILITY AND CLASS OF EXTENSIONS OF MINIMAL LOGIC
Logic and Logical Philosophy Volume 9 (2001), 91 107 S. P. Odintsov LOGIC OF CLASSICAL REFUTABILITY AND CLASS OF EXTENSIONS OF MINIMAL LOGIC Introduction This article continues the investigation of paraconsistent
More informationComputer-Aided Program Design
Computer-Aided Program Design Spring 2015, Rice University Unit 3 Swarat Chaudhuri February 5, 2015 Temporal logic Propositional logic is a good language for describing properties of program states. However,
More informationInformal Statement Calculus
FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS Branches of Logic 1. Theory of Computations (i.e. Recursion Theory). 2. Proof Theory. 3. Model Theory. 4. Set Theory. Informal Statement Calculus STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES Example
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - VII
Propositional and Predicate Logic - VII Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2015/2016 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - VII WS 2015/2016 1 / 11 Theory Validity in a theory A theory
More informationPropositional Logic: Models and Proofs
Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs C. R. Ramakrishnan CSE 505 1 Syntax 2 Model Theory 3 Proof Theory and Resolution Compiled at 11:51 on 2016/11/02 Computing with Logic Propositional Logic CSE 505
More informationMotivation. CS389L: Automated Logical Reasoning. Lecture 10: Overview of First-Order Theories. Signature and Axioms of First-Order Theory
Motivation CS389L: Automated Logical Reasoning Lecture 10: Overview of First-Order Theories Işıl Dillig Last few lectures: Full first-order logic In FOL, functions/predicates are uninterpreted (i.e., structure
More informationPROPOSITIONAL MIXED LOGIC: ITS SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS
PROPOSITIONAL MIXED LOGIC: ITS SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS Karim NOUR 1 and Abir NOUR 2 Abstract In this paper, we present a propositional logic (called mixed logic) containing disjoint copies of minimal, intuitionistic
More informationPositive provability logic
Positive provability logic Lev Beklemishev Steklov Mathematical Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow November 12, 2013 Strictly positive modal formulas The language of modal logic extends that
More informationTwo-Valued Logic Programs
Two-Valued Logic Programs Vladimir Lifschitz University of Texas at Austin, USA Abstract We define a nonmonotonic formalism that shares some features with three other systems of nonmonotonic reasoning
More informationLecture 1: Logical Foundations
Lecture 1: Logical Foundations Zak Kincaid January 13, 2016 Logics have two components: syntax and semantics Syntax: defines the well-formed phrases of the language. given by a formal grammar. Typically
More informationPropositional Logic, Predicates, and Equivalence
Chapter 1 Propositional Logic, Predicates, and Equivalence A statement or a proposition is a sentence that is true (T) or false (F) but not both. The symbol denotes not, denotes and, and denotes or. If
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems are
More informationCS156: The Calculus of Computation
CS156: The Calculus of Computation Zohar Manna Winter 2010 It is reasonable to hope that the relationship between computation and mathematical logic will be as fruitful in the next century as that between
More informationA modal logic for games with lies
A modal logic for games with lies Bruno Teheux University of Luxembourg The RÉNYI ULAM game A searching game with lies 1. ALICE chooses an element in {1,..., M}. 2. BOB tries to guess this number by asking
More informationExistential definability of modal frame classes
Existential definability of modal frame classes Tin Perkov Polytechnic of Zagreb, Croatia tin.perkov@tvz.hr Abstract. A class of Kripke frames is called modally definable if there is a set of modal formulas
More informationModal Dependence Logic
Modal Dependence Logic Jouko Väänänen Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands J.A.Vaananen@uva.nl Abstract We
More informationResolution for mixed Post logic
Resolution for mixed Post logic Vladimir Komendantsky Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of Science, Volkhonka 14, 119992 Moscow, Russia vycom@pochtamt.ru Abstract. In this paper we present a resolution
More informationChapter 3 Deterministic planning
Chapter 3 Deterministic planning In this chapter we describe a number of algorithms for solving the historically most important and most basic type of planning problem. Two rather strong simplifying assumptions
More informationPDL for Qualitative Reasoning about moving objects. A first step
PDL for Qualitative Reasoning about moving objects. A first step Alfredo Burrieza, Emilio Muñoz-Velasco and Manuel Ojeda-Aciego University of Málaga (Spain) Abstract We propose an initial approach to the
More informationOn Axiomatic Rejection for the Description Logic ALC
On Axiomatic Rejection for the Description Logic ALC Hans Tompits Vienna University of Technology Institute of Information Systems Knowledge-Based Systems Group Joint work with Gerald Berger Context The
More informationWhat are the recursion theoretic properties of a set of axioms? Understanding a paper by William Craig Armando B. Matos
What are the recursion theoretic properties of a set of axioms? Understanding a paper by William Craig Armando B. Matos armandobcm@yahoo.com February 5, 2014 Abstract This note is for personal use. It
More informationIntroduction to Metalogic
Philosophy 135 Spring 2008 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: Remarks: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii)
More informationLöwenheim-Skolem Theorems, Countable Approximations, and L ω. David W. Kueker (Lecture Notes, Fall 2007)
Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems, Countable Approximations, and L ω 0. Introduction David W. Kueker (Lecture Notes, Fall 2007) In its simplest form the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem for L ω1 ω states that if σ L ω1
More informationAxiomatisation of Hybrid Logic
Imperial College London Department of Computing Axiomatisation of Hybrid Logic by Louis Paternault Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc Degree in Advanced Computing of Imperial
More informationSubsumption of concepts in FL 0 for (cyclic) terminologies with respect to descriptive semantics is PSPACE-complete.
Subsumption of concepts in FL 0 for (cyclic) terminologies with respect to descriptive semantics is PSPACE-complete. Yevgeny Kazakov and Hans de Nivelle MPI für Informatik, Saarbrücken, Germany E-mail:
More informationA Resolution Method for Modal Logic S5
EPiC Series in Computer Science Volume 36, 2015, Pages 252 262 GCAI 2015. Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence A Resolution Method for Modal Logic S5 Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis Université
More informationΠ 0 1-presentations of algebras
Π 0 1-presentations of algebras Bakhadyr Khoussainov Department of Computer Science, the University of Auckland, New Zealand bmk@cs.auckland.ac.nz Theodore Slaman Department of Mathematics, The University
More informationAlternating nonzero automata
Alternating nonzero automata Application to the satisfiability of CTL [,, P >0, P =1 ] Hugo Gimbert, joint work with Paulin Fournier LaBRI, Université de Bordeaux ANR Stoch-MC 06/07/2017 Control and verification
More information3. Only sequences that were formed by using finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2, are propositional formulas.
1 Chapter 1 Propositional Logic Mathematical logic studies correct thinking, correct deductions of statements from other statements. Let us make it more precise. A fundamental property of a statement is
More informationModal logics: an introduction
Modal logics: an introduction Valentin Goranko DTU Informatics October 2010 Outline Non-classical logics in AI. Variety of modal logics. Brief historical remarks. Basic generic modal logic: syntax and
More informationModel Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 5. Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark
Model Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 5 Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark Third Indian School on Logic and its Applications Hyderabad, January 29, 2010 Model Theory of Modal Logic Lecture
More informationModel Checking for Modal Intuitionistic Dependence Logic
1/71 Model Checking for Modal Intuitionistic Dependence Logic Fan Yang Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Helsinki Logical Approaches to Barriers in Complexity II Cambridge, 26-30 March,
More informationA New 3-CNF Transformation by Parallel-Serial Graphs 1
A New 3-CNF Transformation by Parallel-Serial Graphs 1 Uwe Bubeck, Hans Kleine Büning University of Paderborn, Computer Science Institute, 33098 Paderborn, Germany Abstract For propositional formulas we
More informationTemporal logics and explicit-state model checking. Pierre Wolper Université de Liège
Temporal logics and explicit-state model checking Pierre Wolper Université de Liège 1 Topics to be covered Introducing explicit-state model checking Finite automata on infinite words Temporal Logics and
More informationKLEENE LOGIC AND INFERENCE
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 4:1/2 (2014), pp. 4 2 Grzegorz Malinowski KLEENE LOGIC AND INFERENCE Abstract In the paper a distinguished three-valued construction by Kleene [2] is analyzed. The
More informationThe Calculus of Computation: Decision Procedures with Applications to Verification. Part I: FOUNDATIONS. by Aaron Bradley Zohar Manna
The Calculus of Computation: Decision Procedures with Applications to Verification Part I: FOUNDATIONS by Aaron Bradley Zohar Manna 1. Propositional Logic(PL) Springer 2007 1-1 1-2 Propositional Logic(PL)
More informationDismatching and Local Disunification in EL
Dismatching and Local Disunification in EL (Extended Abstract) Franz Baader, Stefan Borgwardt, and Barbara Morawska Theoretical Computer Science, TU Dresden, Germany {baader,stefborg,morawska}@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de
More informationFoundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes
Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes These notes form a brief summary of what has been covered during the lectures. All the definitions must be memorized and understood. Statements
More informationMONADIC FRAGMENTS OF INTUITIONISTIC CONTROL LOGIC
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 45:3/4 (2016), pp. 143 153 http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.45.3.4.01 Anna Glenszczyk MONADIC FRAGMENTS OF INTUITIONISTIC CONTROL LOGIC Abstract We investigate
More informationINTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims
Introduction INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 2 Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic Volker Halbach In what follows I look at some formal languages that are much simpler than English and define validity of
More informationOn the Logic and Computation of Partial Equilibrium Models
On the Logic and Computation of Partial Equilibrium Models Pedro Cabalar 1, Sergei Odintsov 2, David Pearce 3 and Agustín Valverde 4 1 Corunna University (Corunna, Spain), cabalar@dc.fi.udc.es 2 Sobolev
More information