Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFinding Finite Models in Multi-Sorted First Order Logic
100
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Martin Suda
Publication date
2016
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
This work extends the existing MACE-style finite model finding approach to multi-sorted first order logic. This existing approach iteratively assumes increasing domain sizes and encodes the related ground problem as a SAT problem. When moving to the multi-sorted setting each sort may have a different domain size, leading to an explosion in the search space. This paper focusses on methods to tame that search space. The key approach adds additional information to the SAT encoding to suggest which domains should be grown. Evaluation of an implementation of techniques in the Vampire theorem prover shows that they dramatically reduce the search space and that this is an effective approach to find finite models in multi-sorted first order logic.
rate research
Read More
It is well known that the classic {L}os-Tarski preservation theorem fails in the finite: there are first-order definable classes of finite structures closed under extensions which are not definable (in the finite) in the existential fragment of first-order logic. We strengthen this by constructing for every $n$, first-order definable classes of finite structures closed under extensions which are not definable with $n$ quantifier alternations. The classes we construct are definable in the extension of Datalog with negation and indeed in the existential fragment of transitive-closure logic. This answers negatively an open question posed by Rosen and Weinstein.
We consider Hoare-style verification for the graph programming language GP 2. In previous work, graph properties were specified by so-called E-conditions which extend nested graph conditions. However, this type of assertions is not easy to comprehend by programmers that are used to formal specifications in standard first-order logic. In this paper, we present an approach to verify GP 2 programs with a standard first-order logic. We show how to construct a strongest liberal postcondition with respect to a rule schema and a precondition. We then extend this construction to obtain strongest liberal postconditions for arbitrary loop-free programs. Compared with previous work, this allows to reason about a vastly generalised class of graph programs. In particular, many programs with nested loops can be verified with the new calculus.
Existing work on theorem proving for the assertion language of separation logic (SL) either focuses on abstract semantics which are not readily available in most applications of program verification, or on concrete models for which completeness is not possible. An important element in concrete SL is the points-to predicate which denotes a singleton heap. SL with the points-to predicate has been shown to be non-recursively enumerable. In this paper, we develop a first-order SL, called FOASL, with an abstracted version of the points-to predicate. We prove that FOASL is sound and complete with respect to an abstract semantics, of which the standard SL semantics is an instance. We also show that some reasoning principles involving the points-to predicate can be approximated as FOASL theories, thus allowing our logic to be used for reasoning about concrete program verification problems. We give some example theories that are sound with respect to different variants of separation logics from the literature, including those that are incompatible with Reynoldss semantics. In the experiment we demonstrate our FOASL based theorem prover which is able to handle a large fragment of separation logic with heap semantics as well as non-standard semantics.
A genoid is a category of two objects such that one is the product of itself with the other. A genoid may be viewed as an abstract substitution algebra. It is a remarkable fact that such a simple concept can be applied to present a unified algebraic approach to lambda calculus and first order logic.
Quantified modal logic provides a natural logical language for reasoning about modal attitudes even while retaining the richness of quantification for referring to predicates over domains. But then most fragments of the logic are undecidable, over many model classes. Over the years, only a few fragments (such as the monodic) have been shown to be decidable. In this paper, we study fragments that bundle quantifiers and modalities together, inspired by earlier work on epistemic logics of know-how/why/what. As always with quantified modal logics, it makes a significant difference whether the domain stays the same across worlds, or not. In particular, we show that the bundle $forall Box$ is undecidable over constant domain interpretations, even with only monadic predicates, whereas $exists Box$ bundle is decidable. On the other hand, over increasing domain interpretations, we get decidability with both $forall Box$ and $exists Box$ bundles with unrestricted predicates. In these cases, we also obtain tableau based procedures that run in PSPACE. We further show that the $exists Box$ bundle cannot distinguish between constant domain and increasing domain interpretations.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
