No Arabic abstract
This paper explores the proof theory necessary for recommending an expressive but decidable first-order system, named MAV1, featuring a de Morgan dual pair of nominal quantifiers. These nominal quantifiers called `new and `wen are distinct from the self-dual Gabbay-Pitts and Miller-Tiu nominal quantifiers. The novelty of these nominal quantifiers is they are polarised in the sense that `new distributes over positive operators while `wen distributes over negative operators. This greater control of bookkeeping enables private names to be modelled in processes embedded as formulae in MAV1. The technical challenge is to establish a cut elimination result, from which essential properties including the transitivity of implication follow. Since the system is defined using the calculus of structures, a generalisation of the sequent calculus, novel techniques are employed. The proof relies on an intricately designed multiset-based measure of the size of a proof, which is used to guide a normalisation technique called splitting. The presence of equivariance, which swaps successive quantifiers, induces complex inter-dependencies between nominal quantifiers, additive conjunction and multiplicative operators in the proof of splitting. Every rule is justified by an example demonstrating why the rule is necessary for soundly embedding processes and ensuring that cut elimination holds.
This paper revisits the multi-agent epistemic logic presented in [10], where agents and sets of agents are replaced by abstract, intensional names. We make three contributions. First, we study its model theory, providing adequate notions of bisimulation and frame morphisms, and use them to study the logics expressive power and definability. Second, we show that the logic has a natural neighborhood semantics, which in turn allows to show that the axiomatization in [10] does not rely on possibly controversial introspective properties of knowledge. Finally, we extend the logic with common and distributed knowledge operators, and provide a sound and complete axiomatization for each of these extensions. These results together put the original epistemic logic with names in a more modern context and opens the door for a logical analysis of epistemic phenomena where group membership is uncertain or variable.
Short-circuit evaluation denotes the semantics of propositional connectives in which the second argument is evaluated only if the first argument does not suffice to determine the value of the expression. Short-circuit evaluation is widely used in programming, with sequential conjunction and disjunction as primitive connectives. We study the question which logical laws axiomatize short-circuit evaluation under the following assumptions: compound statements are evaluated from left to right, each atom (propositional variable) evaluates to either true or false, and atomic evaluations can cause a side effect. The answer to this question depends on the kind of atomic side effects that can occur and leads to different short-circuit logics. The basic case is FSCL (free short-circuit logic), which characterizes the setting in which each atomic evaluation can cause a side effect. We recall some main results and then relate FSCL to MSCL (memorizing short-circuit logic), where in the evaluation of a compound statement, the first evaluation result of each atom is memorized. MSCL can be seen as a sequential variant of propositional logic: atomic evaluations cannot cause a side effect and the sequential connectives are not commutative. Then we relate MSCL to SSCL (static short-circuit logic), the variant of propositional logic that prescribes short-circuit evaluation with commutative sequential connectives. We present evaluation trees as an intuitive semantics for short-circuit evaluation, and simple equational axiomatizations for the short-circuit logics mentioned that use negation and the sequential connectives only.
Linear logical frameworks with subexponentials have been used for the specification of among other systems, proof systems, concurrent programming languages and linear authorization logics. In these frameworks, subexponentials can be configured to allow or not for the application of the contraction and weakening rules while the exchange rule can always be applied. This means that formulae in such frameworks can only be organized as sets and multisets of formulae not being possible to organize formulae as lists of formulae. This paper investigates the proof theory of linear logic proof systems in the non-commutative variant. These systems can disallow the application of exchange rule on some subexponentials. We investigate conditions for when cut-elimination is admissible in the presence of non-commutative subexponentials, investigating the interaction of the exchange rule with local and non-local contraction rules. We also obtain some new undecidability and decidability results on non-commutative linear logic with subexponentials.
Automated program verification is a difficult problem. It is undecidable even for transition systems over Linear Integer Arithmetic (LIA). Extending the transition system with theory of Arrays, further complicates the problem by requiring inference and reasoning with universally quantified formulas. In this paper, we present a new algorithm, Quic3, that extends IC3 to infer universally quantified invariants over the combined theory of LIA and Arrays. Unlike other approaches that use either IC3 or an SMT solver as a black box, Quic3 carefully manages quantified generalization (to construct quantified invariants) and quantifier instantiation (to detect convergence in the presence of quantifiers). While Quic3 is not guaranteed to converge, it is guaranteed to make progress by exploring longer and longer executions. We have implemented Quic3 within the Constrained Horn Clause solver engine of Z3 and experimented with it by applying Quic3 to verifying a variety of public benchmarks of array manipulating C programs.
Game comonads, introduced by Abramsky, Dawar and Wang and developed by Abramsky and Shah, give an interesting categorical semantics to some Spoiler-Duplicator games that are common in finite model theory. In particular they expose connections between one-sided and two-sided games, and parameters such as treewidth and treedepth and corresponding notions of decomposition. In the present paper, we expand the realm of game comonads to logics with generalised quantifiers. In particular, we introduce a comonad graded by two parameter $n leq k$ such that isomorphisms in the resulting Kleisli category are exactly Duplicator winning strategies in Hellas $n$-bijection game with $k$ pebbles. We define a one-sided version of this game which allows us to provide a categorical semantics for a number of logics with generalised quantifiers. We also give a novel notion of tree decomposition that emerges from the construction.