Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Completeness and Decidability Results for CTL in Constructive Type Theory

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We prove completeness and decidability results for the temporal logic CTL in Coq/Ssreflect. Our main result is a constructive proof that for every formula one can obtain either a finite model satisfying the formula or a proof in a Hilbert system certifying the unsatisfiability of the formula. The small model property of CTL and completeness of the Hilbert system follow as corollaries. Our proofs mostly refine the mathematical proofs given by Emerson and Halpern. One important deviation is our use of an inductive semantics for CTL to avoid reasoning about infinite paths. On finite models the inductive semantics agrees constructively with the standard path semantics. The proof amounts to the verification of a simple model checking algorithm. For general models, the agreement between the inductive semantics and the path semantics requires excluded middle and dependent choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also write V for the finite type of elements of V

  2. We convert finite sets to lists as required.

References

  1. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ben-Ari, M., Pnueli, A., Manna, Z.: The temporal logic of branching time. Acta Inf. 20(3), 207–226 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertot, Y., Gonthier, G., Biha, S.O., Pasca, I.: Canonical big operators. In: O.A. Mohamed, C. Muñoz, S. Tahar (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs 2008), LNCS, vol. 5170, pp. 86–101. Springer (2008)

  4. Brünnler, K., Lange, M.: Cut-free sequent systems for temporal logic. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 76(2), 216–225 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8(2), 244–263 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Doczkal, C., Smolka, G.: Coq formalization accompanying this paper (Online Resource 1). www.ps.uni-saarland.de/extras/jaritp14/

  7. Doczkal, C., Smolka, G.: Completeness and decidability results for CTL in Coq. In: G. Klein, R. Gamboa (eds.) Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP 2014), LNAI, vol. 8558, pp. 226–241. Springer (2014)

  8. Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science: Formal Models and Sematics, vol. B, pp. 995–1072. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Emerson, E.A.: The beginning of model checking: a personal perspective. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking, LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 27–45. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M.: Characterizing correctness properties of parallel programs using fixpoints. In: de Bakker, J.W., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) Automata, Languages and Programming, LNCS, vol. 85, pp. 169–181. Springer, Berlin (1980)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M.: Using branching time temporal logic to synthesize synchronization skeletons. Sci. Comput. Program. 2(3), 241–266 (1982)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 30(1), 1–24 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Emerson, E.A., Lei, C.: Efficient model checking in fragments of the propositional mu-calculus (extended abstract). In: Proceedings, Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 16–18 June 1986, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 267–278. IEEE Computer Society (1986)

  14. Escardó, M.: Infinite sets that satisfy the principle of omniscience in any variety of constructive mathematics. J. Symb. Log. 78(3), 764–784 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Fischer, M.J., Ladner, R.E.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitting, M.: Modal proof theory. In: Blackburn, P., van Benthem, J., Wolter, F. (eds.) Handbook of Modal Logic, Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, vol. 3, pp. 85–138. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gonthier, G., Mahboubi, A., Rideau, L., Tassi, E., Théry, L.: A modular formalisation of finite group theory. In: Schneider, K., Brandt, J. (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs 2007), LNCS, vol. 4732, pp. 86–101. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Gonthier, G., Mahboubi, A., Tassi, E.: A small scale reflection extension for the Coq system. Research report RR-6455, INRIA Saclay (2008)

  19. Herbelin, H.: A constructive proof of dependent choice, compatible with classical logic. In: 27th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 365–374. IEEE Computer Society (2012)

  20. Kaminski, M., Schneider, T., Smolka, G.: Correctness and worst-case optimality of Pratt-style decision procedures for modal and hybrid logics. In: Brünnler, K., Metcalfe, G. (eds.) Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX 2011), LNAI, vol. 6793, pp. 196–210. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaminski, M., Smolka, G.: Terminating tableaux for hybrid logic with eventualities. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2010), LNCS, vol. 6173, pp. 240–254. Springer, Berlin (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaminski, M., Smolka, G.: A goal-directed decision procedure for hybrid PDL. J. Autom. Reason. 52(4), 407–450 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Lange, M., Stirling, C.: Focus games for satisfiability and completeness of temporal logic. In: 16th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 357–365. IEEE Computer Society (2001)

  24. Pratt, V.R.: Models of program logics. In: 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’79), pp. 115–122. IEEE Computer Society (1979)

  25. Smullyan, R.M.: First-Order Logic. Springer, Berlin (1968)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Sozeau, M.: A new look at generalized rewriting in type theory. J. Form. Reason. 2(1), 41–62 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. The Coq Development Team. http://coq.inria.fr

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Christian Doczkal & Gert Smolka

Authors
  1. Christian Doczkal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gert Smolka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Doczkal.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (zip 74 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doczkal, C., Smolka, G. Completeness and Decidability Results for CTL in Constructive Type Theory. J Autom Reasoning 56, 343–365 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-016-9361-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-016-9361-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation