Studia Logica

, Volume 50, Issue 3–4, pp 571–605 | Cite as

Dynamic algebras: Examples, constructions, applications

  • Vaughan Pratt


Dynamic algebras combine the classes of Boolean (B ∨ ′ 0) and regular (R ∪; *) algebras into a single finitely axiomatized variety (B R ◊) resembling an R-module with “scalar” multiplication ◊. The basic result is that * is reflexive transitive closure, contrary to the intuition that this concept should require quantifiers for its definition. Using this result we give several examples of dynamic algebras arising naturally in connection with additive functions, binary relations, state trajectories, languages, and flowcharts. The main result is that free dynamic algebras are residually finite (i.e. factor as a subdirect product of finite dynamic algebras), important because finite separable dynamic algebras are isomorphic to Kripke structures. Applications include a new completeness proof for the Segerberg axiomatization of prepositional dynamic logic, and yet another notion of regular algebra.


Mathematical Logic Binary Relation Additive Function Basic Result Computational Linguistic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Bir35]
    G. Birkhoff. On the structure of abstract algebras. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc, 31, 1935.Google Scholar
  2. [Bir67]
    G. Birkhoff. Lattice Theory. Volume 25, A.M.S. Colloq. Publications, 1967.Google Scholar
  3. [BL70]
    G. Birkhoff and J.D. Lipson. Heterogeneous algebras. J. of Combinatorial Theory, 8:115–133, 1970.Google Scholar
  4. [Bri81]
    C. Brink. Boolean modules. Journal of Algebra, 71:291–313, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. [CCMP89]
    R.T Casley, R.F. Crew, J. Meseguer, and V.R. Pratt. Temporal structures. In Proc. Conf. on Category Theory and Computer Science, LNCS, Springer-Verlag, Manchester, September 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [Coh65]
    P.M. Cohn. Universal Algebra. Harper and Row, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. [Con71a]
    J.H. Conway. Regular Algebra and Finite Machines. Chapman and Hall, London, 1971.Google Scholar
  8. [Con71b]
    J.H. Conway. Regular Algebra and Finite Machines. Chapman and Hall, London, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. [Con77]
    R.L. Constable. On the theory of programming logics. In Proc. 9th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 269–285, Boulder, Col., May 1977.Google Scholar
  10. [dBdR72]
    J.W. de Bakker and W.P. de Roever. A calculus for recursive program schemes. In M. Nivat, editor, Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 167–196, North Holland, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. [Dij76]
    E.W. Dijkstra. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.Google Scholar
  12. [FL79]
    M.J Fischer and R.E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. JCSS, 18(2), 1979.Google Scholar
  13. [Flo67]
    R.W. Floyd. Assigning meanings to programs. In J.T Schwartz, editor, Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 19–32, 1967.Google Scholar
  14. [Gra68]
    G. Graetzer. Universal Algebra. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1968.Google Scholar
  15. [Hal62]
    P.R. Halmos. Algebraic Logic. Chelsea, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
  16. [Har84]
    D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic. II: Extensions of Classical Logic, pages 497–604, D. Reidel, Boston, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. [Hen77]
    L. Henkin. The logic of equality. Amer. Math. Monthly, 84(8):597–612, October 1977.Google Scholar
  18. [Hoa69]
    C.A.R. Hoare. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 12:576–580, 1969.Google Scholar
  19. [Hor51]
    A. Horn. On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras. J. Symbolic Logic, 16:14–21, 1951.Google Scholar
  20. [Kle56]
    S.C. Kleene. Representation of events in nerve nets and finite automata. In Automata Studies, pages 3–42, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1956.Google Scholar
  21. [Koz79a]
    D. Kozen. On the duality of dynamic algebras and Kripke models. In E. Engeler, editor, Proc. Workshop on Logic of Programs 1979, LNCS 125, pages 1–11, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  22. [Koz79b]
    D. Kozen. On the representation of dynamic algebras. Technical Report RC7898, IBM, October 1979.Google Scholar
  23. [Koz79c]
    D. Kozen. A representation theorem for models of *-free PDL. May 1979. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  24. [Koz79d]
    D. Kozen. A representation theorem for models of *-free PDL. Technical Report RC7864, IBM, September 1979.Google Scholar
  25. [Koz80a]
    D. Kozen. On the representation of dynamic algebras II. Technical Report RC8290, IBM, May 1980.Google Scholar
  26. [Koz80b]
    D. Kozen. A representation theorem for models of *-free PDL. In Proc. 7th Colloq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 351–362, July 1980.Google Scholar
  27. [Koz81a]
    D. Kozen. Dynamic algebra: Section in: Propositional dynamic logics of programs: a survey, by R. Parikh. In E. Engeler, editor, Proc. Workshop on Logic of Programs 1979, LNCS 125, pages 102–144, Springer, 1981.Google Scholar
  28. [Koz81b]
    D. Kozen. On induction vs. *-continuity. In D. Kozen, editor, Proc. Workshop on Logics of Programs 1981, LNCS 131, pages 167–176, Spring-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. [Koz90]
    D. Kozen. A Completeness Theorem for Kleene Algebras and the Algebra of Regular Events. Technical Report 90–1123, Cornell U., May 1990.Google Scholar
  30. [KP83]
    D. Kozen and R. Parikh. A decision procedure for the propositional μ-calculus. In E. Clarke and Kozen D., editors, Proc. Workshop on Logics of Programs 1983, LNCS 164, pages 313–325, Springer-Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar
  31. [Mil80]
    R, Milner. Calculus of Communicating Behavior, LNCS 92. Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  32. [Mon64]
    J.D. Monk. On representable relation algebras. Michigan Math. J., 11:207–210, 1964.Google Scholar
  33. [Nem81]
    I. Németi. Dynamic algebras of programs. In Proc. Fundamentals of Computation Theory, LNCS 117, pages 281–290, Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  34. [Nem82]
    I. Németi. Every free algebra in the variety generated by the representable dynamic algebras is separable and representable. Theoretical Computer Science, 17:343–347, 1982.Google Scholar
  35. [Ng84]
    K.C. Ng. Relation Algebras with Transitive Closure. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1984. 157+iv pp.Google Scholar
  36. [NT77]
    K.C. Ng and A. Tarski. Relation algebras with transitive closure, Abstract 742-02-09. Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 24:A29-A30, 1977.Google Scholar
  37. [Par78]
    R. Parikh. A completeness result for a prepositional dynamic logic. In LNCS 64, pages 403–415, Springer-Verlag, 1978.Google Scholar
  38. [Pnu77]
    A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 46–57, October 1977.Google Scholar
  39. [Pra76]
    V.R. Pratt. Semantical considerations on Floyd-Hoare logic. In Proc. 17th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Comp. Sci., pages 109–121, October 1976.Google Scholar
  40. [Pra79a]
    V.R. Pratt. Models of program logics. In 20th Symposium on foundations of Computer Science, San Juan, October 1979.Google Scholar
  41. [Pra79b]
    V.R. Pratt. Process logic. In Proc. 6th Ann. ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 93–100, San Antonio, January 1979.Google Scholar
  42. [Pra80a]
    V.R. Pratt. Application of modal logic to programming. Studia Logica, 34(2/3):257–274, 1980.Google Scholar
  43. [Pra80b]
    V.R. Pratt. Dynamic algebras and the nature of induction. In 12th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation, Los Angeles, April 1980.Google Scholar
  44. [Pra80c]
    V.R. Pratt. A near optimal method for reasoning about action. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 2:231–254, April 1980. Also MIT/LCS/TM-113, M.I.T., Sept. 1978.Google Scholar
  45. [Pra81a]
    V.R. Pratt. A decidable mu-calculus. In Proc. 22nd IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 421–427, October 1981.Google Scholar
  46. [Pra81b]
    V.R. Pratt. Using graphs to understand PDL. In D. Kozen, editor, Proc. Workshop on Logics of Programs 1981, LNCS 131, pages 387–396, Spring-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  47. [Pra90a]
    V.R. Pratt. Action logic and pure induction. In Logics in AI, LNCS 478, pages 97–120, Springer-Verlag, Amsterdam, September 1990.Google Scholar
  48. [Pra90b]
    V.R. Pratt. Dynamic algebras as a well-behaved fragment of relation algebras. In Algebraic Logic and Universal Algebra in Computer Science, LNCS 425, Springer-Verlag, Ames, Iowa, June 1988, 1990.Google Scholar
  49. [Red64]
    V.N. Redko. On defining relations for the algebra of regular events (Russian). Ukrain. Mat. Z., 16:120–126, 1964.Google Scholar
  50. [Sal66]
    A. Salomaa. Two complete axiom systems for the algebra of regular events. Journal of the ACM, 13:158–169, 1966.Google Scholar
  51. [Sal70]
    A. Salwicki. Formalized algorithmic languages. Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Ser. Sci. Math. Astr. Phys., 18(5), 1970.Google Scholar
  52. [Seg77]
    K. Segerberg. A completeness theorem in the modal logic of programs. Notices of the AMS, 24(6):A-552, October 1977.Google Scholar
  53. [SS78]
    A. Salomaa and M. Soittola. Automata-Theoretic Aspects of Formal Power Series. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  54. [Sto36]
    M. Stone. The theory of representations for Boolean algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 40:37–111, 1936.Google Scholar
  55. [Tar41]
    A. Tarski. On the calculus of relations. J. Symbolic Logic, 6:73–89, 1941.Google Scholar
  56. [TR87]
    V. Trnkova and J. Reiterman. Dynamic algebras with tests. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 35:229–242, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Polish Academy of Sciences 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vaughan Pratt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations