DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Temporal Logic Laws

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Temporal Logic Laws List of Temporal Logic Laws We give here a compact list of laws of the various temporal logics, particularly in- cluding those which are frequently used throughout the book. Furthermore, we note some of the corresponding formal systems. Laws of Basic LTL e e (T1) ¬ A ↔ ¬A (T2) ¬2A ↔ 3¬A (T3) ¬3A ↔ 2¬A (T4) 2A → A (T5) A → 3A e (T6) 2A → A e (T7) A → 3A (T8) 2A → 3A (T9) 32A → 23A (T10) 22A ↔ 2A (T11) 33A ↔ 3A e e (T12) 2 A ↔ 2A e e (T13) 3 A ↔ 3A e e e (T14) (A → B) ↔ A → B e e e (T15) (A ∧ B) ↔ A ∧ B e e e (T16) (A ∨ B) ↔ A ∨ B e e e (T17) (A ↔ B) ↔ ( A ↔ B) (T18) 2(A ∧ B) ↔ 2A ∧ 2B (T19) 3(A ∨ B) ↔ 3A ∨ 3B (T20) 23(A ∨ B) ↔ 23A ∨ 23B (T21) 32(A ∧ B) ↔ 32A ∧ 32B (T22) 2(A → B) → (2A → 2B) (T23) 2A ∨ 2B → 2(A ∨ B) (T24) (3A → 3B) → 3(A → B) 414 List of Temporal Logic Laws (T25) 3(A ∧ B) → 3A ∧ 3B (T26) 23(A ∧ B) → 23A ∧ 23B (T27) 32A ∨ 32B → 32(A ∨ B) e (T28) 2A ↔ A ∧ 2A e (T29) 3A ↔ A ∨ 3A e e (T30) 2(A → B) → ( A → B) (T31) 2(A → B) → (3A → 3B) e e (T32) 2A → ( B → (A ∧ B)) (T33) 2A → (2B → 2(A ∧ B)) (T34) 2A → (3B → 3(A ∧ B)) (T35) 2(2A → B) → (2A → 2B) (T36) 2(A → 3B) → (3A → 3B) (T37) 323A ↔ 23A (T38) 232A ↔ 32A Laws for Binary Operators in LTL e (Tb1) A until B ↔ 3B ∧ A unless B e (Tb2) A unless B ↔ (A unl B) (Tb3) A unl B ↔ A unt B ∨ 2A (Tb4) A unt B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ A until B) (Tb5) A unless B ↔ B atnext (A → B) (Tb6) A atnext B ↔ B before (¬A ∧ B) (Tb7) A before B ↔¬(A ∨ B) unless (A ∧¬B) e (Tb8) A ↔ A atnext true (Tb9) 2A ↔ A ∧ A unless false (Tb10) 2A ↔ A unl false e e (Tb11) A until B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ A until B) e e (Tb12) A unless B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ A unless B) e (Tb13) A unt B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ (A unt B)) e (Tb14) A unl B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ (A unl B)) e e (Tb15) A atnext B ↔ (B → A) ∧ (¬B → A atnext B) e e (Tb16) A before B ↔ ¬B ∧ (A ∨ A before B) e e (Tb17) ¬(A unless B) ↔ ¬B ∧ (¬A ∨¬(A unless B)) (Tb18) 2(¬B → A) → A unl B e e e (Tb19) (A unl B) ↔ A unl B (Tb20) (A ∧ B) unl C ↔ A unl C ∧ B unl C (Tb21) A unl (B ∨ C ) ↔ A unl B ∨ A unl C (Tb22) A unl (B ∧ C ) → A unl B ∧ A unl C (Tb23) A unl (A unl B) ↔ A unl B (Tb24) (A unl B) unl B ↔ A unl B (Tb25) 2(B → A) → A atnext B e e e (Tb26) (A atnext B) ↔ A atnext B (Tb27) (A ∧ B) atnext C ↔ A atnext C ∧ B atnext C (Tb28) (A ∨ B) atnext C ↔ A atnext C ∨ B atnext C List of Temporal Logic Laws 415 (Tb29) A atnext (B ∨ C ) → A atnext B ∨ A atnext C Laws for Fixpoint Operators in LTL e (Tμ1) 2A ↔ νu(A ∧ u) e (Tμ2) 3A ↔ μu(A ∨ u) e e (Tμ3) A until B ↔ μu( B ∨ (A ∧ u)) e e (Tμ4) A unless B ↔ νu( B ∨ (A ∧ u)) e (Tμ5) A unt B ↔ μu(B ∨ (A ∧ u)) e (Tμ6) A unl B ↔ νu(B ∨ (A ∧ u)) e e (Tμ7) A atnext B ↔ νu( (B → A) ∧ (¬B → u)) e e (Tμ8) A before B ↔ νu( ¬B ∧ (A ∨ u)) Laws for Propositional Quantification in LTL (Tq1) ∀uA → A (B) e ue (Tq2) ∀u A ↔ ∀uA (Tq3) ∀u2A ↔ 2∀uA (Tq4) ∃u3A ↔ 3∃uA (Tq5) 2(A ∨ B) →∃u2((A ∧ u) ∨ (B ∧¬u)) Laws for Past Operators in LTL e e (Tp1) A →¬ false e e (Tp2) ¬A →¬ A e e (Tp3) ¬ A ↔ ¬A ee (Tp4) A → A ee (Tp5) A → A e e e (Tp6) (A → B) ↔ A → B e e e (Tp7) (A ∧ B) ↔ A ∧ B e e e (Tp8) (A ∧ B) ↔ A ∧ B Laws of First-Order LTL e e (T39) ∃x A ↔ ∃xA e e (T40) ∀x A ↔ ∀xA (T41) ∃x3A ↔ 3∃xA (T42) ∀x2A ↔ 2∀xA (Tb30) ∃x(A unl B) ↔ A unl (∃xB) if there is no free occurrence of x in A (Tb31) ∀x(A unl B) ↔ (∀xA) unl B if there is no free occurrence of x in B (Tb32) ∃x(A atnext B) ↔ (∃xA) atnext B if there is no free occurrence of x in B (Tb33) ∀x(A atnext B) ↔ (∀xA) atnext B if there is no free occurrence of x in B 416 List of Temporal Logic Laws Derivation Rules of Linear Temporal Logic e (nex) A A (alw) A 2A e (ind) A → B, A → A A → 2B e (ind1) A → A A → 2A e (ind2) A → B, B → B A → 2B e (som) A → B A → 3B (chain) A → 3B, B → 3C A → 3C e e (indunless) A → C ∨ (A ∧ B) A → B unless C e (indunl) A → C ∨ (B ∧ A) A → B unl C e e (indatnext) A → (C → B) ∧ (¬C → A) A → B atnext C e e (indbefore) A → ¬C ∧ (A ∨ B) A → B before C (μ-ind) Au (B) → B μuA → B if there is no free occurrence of u in B →∃ e ↔ ∧ (qltl-ind) F u2 ((u2 u1) Fu1 (u2)) →∃ ↔ ∧ 2 F u2((u2 u1) Fu1 (u2)) if every occurrence of variables ui in F is in the scope of e 1 at most one operator and no other temporal operator e (indpast) A → B, A → A A → 2B e (indinit) init → A, A → A A (wfr) A → 3(B ∨∃y¯(¯y ≺ y ∧ Ay (¯y))) ∃yA → 3B if B does not contain y, for y, y¯ ∈XWF Laws of Generalized TLA (GT1) 2 [A] → A e e e (GT2) 2A → 2[ A]e 2 ↔ 2 (GT3) [A]e e [A]e 2 2 → (GT4) [A]e1 [A]e1 e2 2 → 2 (GT5) [A]e1 [A]e1 e2 2 ↔ 2 (GT6) [A]e1 [A]e2 e2 e1 Laws of Interval Temporal Logic (IT1) empty chop A ↔ A e` e` (IT2) A chop B ↔ (A chop B) (IT3) (A ∨ B) chop C ↔ A chop C ∨ B chop C (IT4) A chop (B ∨ C ) ↔ A chop B ∨ A chop C (IT5) A chop (B chop C ) ↔ (A chop B) chop C List of Temporal Logic Laws 417 Laws of BTL and CTL e (BT1) E2A ↔ A ∧ E E2A e (BT2) E3A ↔ A ∨ E E3A e (BT3) A2A ↔ A ∧ A A2A e (BT4) A3A ↔ A ∨ A A3A e e (BT5) A A → E A e (BT6) E2A → E A (BT7) E2E2A ↔ E2A e e (BT8) E E2A → E2E A e e e (BT9) E (A ∧ B) → E A ∧ E B e e e (BT10) E (A → B) ↔ A A → E B (BT11) E3(A ∨ B) ↔ E3A ∨ E3B (BT12) E2(A ∧ B) → E2A ∧ E2B e (CT1) A Eunt B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ E (A Eunt B)) (CT2) A Eunt B → E3B e e e (CT3) E (A Eunt B) ↔ E A Eunt E B (CT4) A Eunt C ∨ B Eunt C → (A ∨ B) Eunt C (CT5) (A ∧ B) Eunt C → A Eunt C ∧ B Eunt C (CT6) A Eunt (B ∨ C ) ↔ A Eunt B ∨ A Eunt C (CT7) A Eunt (B ∧ C ) → A Eunt B ∧ A Eunt C Derivation Rules of Branching Time Temporal Logic e e (nexb) A → B E A → E B e (indb1) A → B, A → E A A → E2B e (indb2) A →¬B, A → A (A ∨¬E3B) A →¬E3B e (indc) A →¬C , A → A (A ∨¬(B Eunt C )) A →¬(B Eunt C ) The Formal System ΣLTL (taut) All tautologically valid formulas e e (ltl1) ¬ A ↔ ¬A e e e (ltl2) (A → B) → ( A → B) e (ltl3) 2A → A ∧ 2A (mp) A, A → B B e (nex) A A e (ind) A → B, A → A A → 2B Additional Axioms and Rules for Extensions of LTL e e (until1) A until B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ A until B) e (until2) A until B → 3B e e (unless1) A unless B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ A unless B) 418 List of Temporal Logic Laws e (unless2) 2A → A unless B e e (atnext1) A atnext B ↔ (B → A) ∧ (¬B → A atnext B) e (atnext2) 2¬B → A atnext B e e (before1) A before B ↔ ¬B ∧ (A ∨ A before B) e (before2) 2¬B → A before B (μ-rec) Au (μuA) → μuA (μ-ind) Au (B) → B μuA → B if there is no free occurrence of u in B (qltl1) A (B) →∃uA u e e (qltl2) ∃u A ↔ ∃uA e (qltl3) ∃u(u ∧ 2¬u) (qltl-part) A → B ∃uA → B if there is no free occurrence of u in B →∃ e ↔ ∧ (qltl-ind) F u2 ((u2 u1) Fu1 (u2)) →∃ ↔ ∧ 2 F u2((u2 u1) Fu1 (u2)) if every occurrence of variables ui in F is in the scope of at e 1 most one operator and no other temporal operator e e (pltl1) ¬A →¬ A e e e (pltl2) (A → B) → ( A → B) e (pltl3) 2A → A ∧ 2A e (pltl4) 3− false ee (pltl5) A → A ee (pltl6) A → A e (prev) A A e (indpast) A → B, A → A A → 2B e (iltl) ¬init (init) init → 2A A e e (since) A since B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ A since B) e e (backto) A backto B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ A backto B) e e (atlast) A atlast B ↔ (B → A) ∧ (¬B → A atlast B) e e (after) A after B ↔ ¬B ∧ (A ∨ A after B) The Formal System ΣFOLTL (taut) All tautologically valid formulas e e (ltl1) ¬ A ↔ ¬A e e e (ltl2) (A → B) → ( A → B) e (ltl3) 2A → A ∧ 2A (ltl4) A (t) →∃xA if t is substitutable for x in A ex e (ltl5) ∃xA →∃x A e (ltl6) A → A if A is rigid (eq1) x = x (eq2) x = y → (A → Ax (y)) if A is non-temporal (mp) A, A → B B List of Temporal Logic Laws 419 e (nex) A A e (ind) A → B, A → A A → 2B (par) A → B ∃xA → B if there is no free occurrence of x in B The Formal System ΣpGTLA (taut) All tautologically valid formulas (tautpf ) 2[A]e if A is a tautologically valid pre-formula (gtla1) 2A → A (gtla2) 2A → 2[A] ee (gtla3) 2A → 2[ 2A]e (gtla4) 2[A → B]e → (2[A]e → 2[B]e ) (gtla5) 2[e = e] e e e (gtla6) 2[¬ A ↔ ¬A] e e e e (gtla7) 2[ (A → B) → ( A → B)]e 2 2 → (gtla8) [A]e1 [A]e1 e2 2 → 2 e2 (gtla9) [A]e1 [A]e1 e2 2 ∧ e2 → 2 (gtla10) [A]e1 [A]e1 [A]e1 e2 2 e2 → 2 e (gtla11) A [ A]e1 e2 (mp) A, A → B B (alw) A 2A e (indpf ) A → B, 2[A → A]U(A) A → 2B The Formal System ΣBTL (taut) All tautologically valid formulas e (btl1) E true e e e (btl2) E (A ∨ B) ↔ E A ∨ E B e (btl3) E2A ↔ A ∧ E E2A e (btl4) E3A ↔ A ∨ E E3A (mp) A, A → B B e e (nexb) A → B E A → E B e (indb1) A → B, A → E A A → E2B e (indb2) A →¬B, A → A (A ∨¬E3B) A →¬E3B The Formal System ΣCTL (taut) All tautologically valid formulas e (btl1) E true e e e (btl2) E (A ∨ B) ↔ E A ∨ E B e (btl3) E2A ↔ A ∧ E E2A e (ctl) A Eunt B ↔ B ∨ (A ∧ E (A Eunt B)) (mp) A, A → B B 420 List of Temporal Logic Laws e e (nexb) A → B E A → E B e (indb1) A → B, A → E A A → E2B e (indc) A →¬C , A → A (A ∨¬(B Eunt C )) A →¬(B Eunt C ) References 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reasoning in the Temporal Logic of Actions Basic Research in Computer Science
    BRICS BRICS DS-96-1 U. Engberg: Reasoning in the Temporal Logic of Actions Basic Research in Computer Science Reasoning in the Temporal Logic of Actions The design and implementation of an interactive computer system Urban Engberg BRICS Dissertation Series DS-96-1 ISSN 1396-7002 August 1996 Copyright c 1996, BRICS, Department of Computer Science University of Aarhus. All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or part of this work is permitted for educational or research use on condition that this copyright notice is included in any copy. See back inner page for a list of recent publications in the BRICS Dissertation Series. Copies may be obtained by contacting: BRICS Department of Computer Science University of Aarhus Ny Munkegade, building 540 DK - 8000 Aarhus C Denmark Telephone: +45 8942 3360 Telefax: +45 8942 3255 Internet: [email protected] BRICS publications are in general accessible through WWW and anonymous FTP: http://www.brics.dk/ ftp ftp.brics.dk (cd pub/BRICS) Reasoning in the Temporal Logic of Actions The design and implementation of an interactive computer system Urban Engberg Ph.D. Dissertation Department of Computer Science University of Aarhus Denmark Reasoning in the Temporal Logic of Actions The design and implementation of an interactive computer system A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Science of the University of Aarhus in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Ph.D. Degree by Urban Engberg September 1995 Abstract Reasoning about algorithms stands out as an essential challenge of computer science. Much work has been put into the development of formal methods, within recent years focusing especially on concurrent algorithms.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT: Final Version in Journal of Philosophical Logic Paul Hovda
    Tensed mereology DRAFT: final version in Journal of Philosophical Logic Paul Hovda There are at least three main approaches to thinking about the way parthood logically interacts with time. Roughly: the eternalist perdurantist approach, on which the primary parthood relation is eternal and two-placed, and objects that persist persist by having temporal parts; the parameterist approach, on which the primary parthood relation is eternal and logically three-placed (x is part of y at t) and objects may or may not have temporal parts; and the tensed approach, on which the primary parthood relation is two-placed but (in many cases) temporary, in the sense that it may be that x is part of y, though x was not part of y. (These characterizations are brief; too brief, in fact, as our discussion will eventually show.) Orthogonally, there are different approaches to questions like Peter van Inwa- gen's \Special Composition Question" (SCQ): under what conditions do some objects compose something?1 (Let us, for the moment, work with an undefined notion of \compose;" we will get more precise later.) One central divide is be- tween those who answer the SCQ with \Under any conditions!" and those who disagree. In general, we can distinguish \plenitudinous" conceptions of compo- sition, that accept this answer, from \sparse" conceptions, that do not. (van Inwagen uses the term \universalist" where we use \plenitudinous.") A question closely related to the SCQ is: under what conditions do some objects compose more than one thing? We may distinguish “flat” conceptions of composition, on which the answer is \Under no conditions!" from others.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of LTL
    The Rise and Fall of LTL Moshe Y. Vardi Rice University Monadic Logic Monadic Class: First-order logic with = and monadic predicates – captures syllogisms. • (∀x)P (x), (∀x)(P (x) → Q(x)) |=(∀x)Q(x) [Lowenheim¨ , 1915]: The Monadic Class is decidable. • Proof: Bounded-model property – if a sentence is satisfiable, it is satisfiable in a structure of bounded size. • Proof technique: quantifier elimination. Monadic Second-Order Logic: Allow second- order quantification on monadic predicates. [Skolem, 1919]: Monadic Second-Order Logic is decidable – via bounded-model property and quantifier elimination. Question: What about <? 1 Nondeterministic Finite Automata A = (Σ,S,S0,ρ,F ) • Alphabet: Σ • States: S • Initial states: S0 ⊆ S • Nondeterministic transition function: ρ : S × Σ → 2S • Accepting states: F ⊆ S Input word: a0, a1,...,an−1 Run: s0,s1,...,sn • s0 ∈ S0 • si+1 ∈ ρ(si, ai) for i ≥ 0 Acceptance: sn ∈ F Recognition: L(A) – words accepted by A. 1 - - Example: • • – ends with 1’s 6 0 6 ¢0¡ ¢1¡ Fact: NFAs define the class Reg of regular languages. 2 Logic of Finite Words View finite word w = a0,...,an−1 over alphabet Σ as a mathematical structure: • Domain: 0,...,n − 1 • Binary relation: < • Unary relations: {Pa : a ∈ Σ} First-Order Logic (FO): • Unary atomic formulas: Pa(x) (a ∈ Σ) • Binary atomic formulas: x < y Example: (∃x)((∀y)(¬(x < y)) ∧ Pa(x)) – last letter is a. Monadic Second-Order Logic (MSO): • Monadic second-order quantifier: ∃Q • New unary atomic formulas: Q(x) 3 NFA vs. MSO Theorem [B¨uchi, Elgot, Trakhtenbrot, 1957-8 (independently)]: MSO ≡ NFA • Both MSO and NFA define the class Reg.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternation-Free Modal Mu-Calculus for Data Trees (Extended Abstract)
    Alternation-free modal mu-calculus for data trees (Extended abstract) Marcin Jurdzi´nski and Ranko Lazi´c∗ Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, UK Abstract The recent survey by Segoufin [30] summarises the sub- stantial progress made on reasoning about data words and An alternation-free modal µ-calculus over data trees is data trees. A data word is a word over a finite alphabet, introduced and studied. A data tree is an unranked or- with an equivalence relation on word positions. Implicitly, dered tree whose every node is labelled by a letter from every word position is labelled by an element (“datum”) a finite alphabet and an element (“datum”) from an infi- from an infinite set (“data domain”), but since the infinite nite set. For expressing data-sensitive properties, the calcu- set is equipped only with the equality predicate, it suffices lus is equipped with freeze quantification. A freeze quanti- to know which word positions are labelled by equal data, fier stores in a register the datum labelling the current tree and that is what the equivalence relation represents. Simi- node, which can then be accessed for equality comparisons larly, a data tree is a tree (countable, unranked and ordered) deeper in the formula. whose every node is labelled by a letter from a finite alpha- The main results in the paper are that, for the fragment bet, with an equivalence relation on the set of its nodes. with forward modal operators and one register, satisfiabi- First-order logic for data words was considered in [5], lity over finite data trees is decidable but not primitive re- where variables range over word positions ({0,...,l− 1} cursive, and that for the subfragment consisting of safety or N), there is a unary predicate for each letter from the formulae, satisfiability over countable data trees is decid- finite alphabet, and there is a binary predicate x ∼ y for able but not elementary.
    [Show full text]
  • On Constructive Linear-Time Temporal Logic
    Replace this file with prentcsmacro.sty for your meeting, or with entcsmacro.sty for your meeting. Both can be found at the ENTCS Macro Home Page. On Constructive Linear-Time Temporal Logic Kensuke Kojima1 and Atsushi Igarashi2 Graduate School of Informatics Kyoto University Kyoto, Japan Abstract In this paper we study a version of constructive linear-time temporal logic (LTL) with the “next” temporal operator. The logic is originally due to Davies, who has shown that the proof system of the logic corre- sponds to a type system for binding-time analysis via the Curry-Howard isomorphism. However, he did not investigate the logic itself in detail; he has proved only that the logic augmented with negation and classical reasoning is equivalent to (the “next” fragment of) the standard formulation of classical linear-time temporal logic. We give natural deduction and Kripke semantics for constructive LTL with conjunction and disjunction, and prove soundness and completeness. Distributivity of the “next” operator over disjunction “ (A ∨ B) ⊃ A ∨ B” is rejected from a computational viewpoint. We also give a formalization by sequent calculus and its cut-elimination procedure. Keywords: constructive linear-time temporal logic, Kripke semantics, sequent calculus, cut elimination 1 Introduction Temporal logic is a family of (modal) logics in which the truth of propositions may depend on time, and is useful to describe various properties of state transition systems. Linear-time temporal logic (LTL, for short), which is used to reason about properties of a fixed execution path of a system, is temporal logic in which each time has a unique time that follows it.
    [Show full text]
  • A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Faculty and Staff Publications Mathematics 2007 A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS - 6th ed. Florentin Smarandache University of New Mexico, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp Part of the Algebra Commons, Logic and Foundations Commons, Other Applied Mathematics Commons, and the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Florentin Smarandache. A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS - 6th ed. USA: InfoLearnQuest, 2007 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Mathematics at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty and Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (sixth edition) InfoLearnQuest 2007 FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (sixth edition) This book can be ordered in a paper bound reprint from: Books on Demand ProQuest Information & Learning (University of Microfilm International) 300 N. Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346, USA Tel.: 1-800-521-0600 (Customer Service) http://wwwlib.umi.com/bod/basic Copyright 2007 by InfoLearnQuest. Plenty of books can be downloaded from the following E-Library of Science: http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/eBooks-otherformats.htm Peer Reviewers: Prof. M. Bencze, College of Brasov, Romania.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 7: Computation Tree Logics
    Lecture 7: Computation Tree Logics Model of Computation Computation Tree Logics The Logic CTL Path Formulas and State Formulas CTL and LTL Expressive Power of Logics 1 Model of Computation a b State Transition Graph or Kripke Model b c c a b b c c a b c c Infinite Computation Tree (Unwind State Graph to obtain Infinite Tree) 2 Model of Computation (Cont.) Formally, a Kripke structure is a triple , where is the set of states, is the transition relation, and gives the set of atomic propositions true in each state. We assume that is total (i.e., for all states there exists a state such that ). A path in M is an infinite sequence of states, such that for , . We write to denote the suffix of starting at . Unless otherwise stated, all of our results apply only to finite Kripke structures. 3 Computation Tree Logics Temporal logics may differ according to how they handle branching in the underlying computation tree. In a linear temporal logic, operators are provided for describing events along a single computation path. In a branching-time logic the temporal operators quantify over the paths that are possible from a given state. 4 The Logic CTL The computation tree logic CTL combines both branching-time and linear-time operators. In this logic a path quantifier can prefix an assertion composed of arbitrary combinations of the usual linear-time operators. 1. Path quantifier: A—“for every path” E—“there exists a path” 2. Linear-time operators: X — holds next time. F — holds sometime in the future G — holds globally in the future U — holds until holds 5 Path Formulas and State Formulas The syntax of state formulas is given by the following rules: If , then is a state formula.
    [Show full text]
  • Computation Tree Logic Is Equivalent to Failure Trace Testing
    COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC IS EQUIVALENT TO FAILURE TRACE TESTING by A. F. M. NOKIB UDDIN A thesis submitted to the Department of Computer Science in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Bishop’s University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada July 2015 Copyright c A. F. M. Nokib Uddin, 2015 Abstract The two major systems of formal verification are model checking and algebraic techniques such as model-based testing. Model checking is based on some form of temporal logic such as linear temporal logic (LTL) or computation tree logic (CTL). CTL in particular is capable of expressing most interesting properties of processes such as liveness and safety. Alge- braic techniques are based on some operational semantics of processes (such as traces and failures) and its associated preorders. The most fine-grained practical preorder is based on failure traces. The particular algebraic technique for formal verification based on failure traces is failure trace testing. It was shown earlier [8] that CTL and failure trace testing are equivalent; that is, for any failure trace test there exists a CTL formula equivalent to it, and the other way around. Both conversions are constructive and algorithmic. The proof of the conversion from fail- ure trace tests to CTL formulae and implicitly the associated algorithm is however incor- rect [6]. We now provide a correct proof for the existence of a conversion from failure trace tests to CTL formulae. We also offer intuitive support for our proof by providing worked ex- amples related to the examples used earlier [9] to support the conversion the other way around, thus going full circle not only with the conversion but also with our examples.
    [Show full text]
  • A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic. Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Probability and Statistics
    FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (fourth edition) NL(A1 A2) = ( T1 ({1}T2) T2 ({1}T1) T1T2 ({1}T1) ({1}T2), I1 ({1}I2) I2 ({1}I1) I1 I2 ({1}I1) ({1} I2), F1 ({1}F2) F2 ({1} F1) F1 F2 ({1}F1) ({1}F2) ). NL(A1 A2) = ( {1}T1T1T2, {1}I1I1I2, {1}F1F1F2 ). NL(A1 A2) = ( ({1}T1T1T2) ({1}T2T1T2), ({1} I1 I1 I2) ({1}I2 I1 I2), ({1}F1F1 F2) ({1}F2F1 F2) ). ISBN 978-1-59973-080-6 American Research Press Rehoboth 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005 FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (fourth edition) NL(A1 A2) = ( T1 ({1}T2) T2 ({1}T1) T1T2 ({1}T1) ({1}T2), I1 ({1}I2) I2 ({1}I1) I1 I2 ({1}I1) ({1} I2), F1 ({1}F2) F2 ({1} F1) F1 F2 ({1}F1) ({1}F2) ). NL(A1 A2) = ( {1}T1T1T2, {1}I1I1I2, {1}F1F1F2 ). NL(A1 A2) = ( ({1}T1T1T2) ({1}T2T1T2), ({1} I1 I1 I2) ({1}I2 I1 I2), ({1}F1F1 F2) ({1}F2F1 F2) ). ISBN 978-1-59973-080-6 American Research Press Rehoboth 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005 1 Contents: Preface by C. Le: 3 0. Introduction: 9 1. Neutrosophy - a new branch of philosophy: 15 2. Neutrosophic Logic - a unifying field in logics: 90 3. Neutrosophic Set - a unifying field in sets: 125 4. Neutrosophic Probability - a generalization of classical and imprecise probabilities - and Neutrosophic Statistics: 129 5. Addenda: Definitions derived from Neutrosophics: 133 2 Preface to Neutrosophy and Neutrosophic Logic by C.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Specification and Runtime Verification of Parallel
    Formal Specification and Runtime Verification of Parallel Systems using Interval Temporal Logic (ITL) PhD Thesis Nayef Hmoud Alshammari This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Software Technology Research Laboratory De Montfort University Leicester - United Kingdom 2018 Declaration of Authorship I declare that the work described in this thesis is original work undertaken by me for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Software Technology Research Laboratory (STRL), at De Montfort University, United Kingdom. No part of the material described in this thesis has been submitted for any award of any other degree or qualification in this or any other university or college of advanced education. This thesis is written by me and produced using LATEX. I To my mother’s soul, Helalah bint Hujailan Alshammari (April 21st, 2016). May she rest in peace ... II Acknowledgement Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my first supervisor Dr. Francois Seiwe and second supervisor Dr. Antonio Cau for their continuous support of my PhD study and related research, and for their patience, motivation, and immense knowledge. Their guidance helped me during the time of my research and writing of this thesis. I could not have had more qualified supervisors for my PhD study. Also, I would like to express my great appreciation to Dr. Antonio Cau for the remarkable theoretical and practical support which he offered during the study of my PhD. I would also like to thank my former supervisors Dr. Ben Moszkowski and Dr. Jordan Dimitrov for their roles during my PhD.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Checking with Mbeddr
    Model Checking for State Machines with mbeddr and NuSMV 1 Abstract State machines are a powerful tool for modelling software. Particularly in the field of embedded software development where parts of a system can be abstracted as state machine. Temporal logic languages can be used to formulate desired behaviour of a state machine. NuSMV allows to automatically proof whether a state machine complies with properties given as temporal logic formulas. mbedder is an integrated development environment for the C programming language. It enhances C with a special syntax for state machines. Furthermore, it can automatically translate the code into the input language for NuSMV. Thus, it is possible to make use of state-of-the-art mathematical proofing technologies without the need of error prone and time consuming manual translation. This paper gives an introduction to the subject of model checking state machines and how it can be done with mbeddr. It starts with an explanation of temporal logic languages. Afterwards, some features of mbeddr regarding state machines and their verification are discussed, followed by a short description of how NuSMV works. Author: Christoph Rosenberger Supervising Tutor: Peter Sommerlad Lecture: Seminar Program Analysis and Transformation Term: Spring 2013 School: HSR, Hochschule für Technik Rapperswil Model Checking with mbeddr 2 Introduction Model checking In the words of Cavada et al.: „The main purpose of a model checker is to verify that a model satisfies a set of desired properties specified by the user.” [1] mbeddr As Ratiu et al. state in their paper “Language Engineering as an Enabler for Incrementally Defined Formal Analyses” [2], the semantic gap between general purpose programming languages and input languages for formal verification tools is too big.
    [Show full text]
  • Interval Temporal Logic
    Interval Temporal Logic Antonio Cau and Ben Moszkowski 2021-04-09 HTML version of the ITL home page Abstract Interval Temporal Logic (ITL) is a flexible notation for both propositional and first-order reasoning about periods of time found in descriptions of hardware and software systems. Unlike most temporal logics, ITL can handle both sequential and parallel composition and offers powerful and extensible specification and proof techniques for reasoning about properties involving safety, liveness and pro- jected time [134]. Timing constraints are expressible and furthermore most imperative programming constructs can be viewed as formulas in a slightly modified version of ITL [125]. Tempura provides an executable framework for developing and experimenting with suitable ITL specifications. In addi- tion, ITL and its mature executable subset Tempura [157] have been extensively used to specify the properties of real-time systems where the primitive circuits can directly be represented by a set of simple temporal formulae. In addition, Tempura has been applied to hardware simulation and other areas where timing is important. 1 Contents 1 Finite Interval Temporal Logic3 1.1 Syntax............................................3 1.2 Semantics..........................................3 1.3 Derived Constructs......................................5 1.4 Propositional proof system..................................7 1.5 First order proof system...................................7 2 Finite and Infinite Interval Temporal Logic8 2.1 Syntax............................................8
    [Show full text]