A Semantic Approach to Interpolation

  • Andrei Popescu
  • Traian Florin Şerbănuţă
  • Grigore Roşu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3921)

Abstract

Interpolation results are investigated for various types of formulae. By shifting the focus from syntactic to semantic interpolation, we generate, prove and classify a series of interpolation results for first-order logic. A few of these results non-trivially generalize known interpolation results. All the others are new.

References

  1. 1.
    Andréka, H., Németi, I.: A general axiomatizability theorem formulated in terms of cone-injective subcategories. In: Universal Algebra, vol. 29, pp. 13–35 (1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barwise, J., Feferman, J.: Model-Theoretic Logics. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergstra, J., Heering, J., Klint, P.: Module algebra. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 37(2), 335–372 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borzyszkowski, T.: Generalized interpolation in CASL. Inf. Process. Lett. 76(1-2), 19–24 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borzyszkowski, T.: Logical systems for structured specifications. Theoretical Computer Science 286(2), 197–245 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, C.C., Keisler, H.J.: Model Theory. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1973)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craig, W.: Linear reasoning. A new form of the Herbrand-Gentzen Theorem. Journal of Symbolic Logic 22, 250–268 (1957)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diaconescu, R.: Grothendieck institutions. Appl. Categorical Struct. 10(4), 383–402 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diaconescu, R.: An institution-independent proof of Craig interpolation theorem. Studia Logica 77(1), 59–79 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diaconescu, R.: Interpolation in Grothendieck institutions. Theoretical Computer Science 311, 439–461 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diaconescu, R., Futatsugi, K.: CafeOBJ Report. AMAST Series in Computing, vol. 6. World Scientific, Singapore (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diaconescu, R., Futatsugi, K.: Logical foundations of CafeOBJ. Theoretical Computer Science 285, 289–318 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diaconescu, R., Goguen, J., Stefaneas, P.: Logical support for modularization. In: Huet, G., Plotkin, G. (eds.) Logical Environments, Cambridge, pp. 83–130 (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dimitrakos, T., Maibaum, T.: On a generalized modularization theorem. Information Processing Letters 74(1–2), 65–71 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallier, J.H.: Logic for computer science. Foundations of automatic theorem proving. Harper & Row (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goguen, J.: Types as theories. In: Topology and Category Theory in Computer Science, Oxford, pp. 357–390 (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goguen, J., Burstall, R.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM 39(1), 95–146 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goguen, J., Roşu, G.: Composing hidden information modules over inclusive institutions. In: Owe, O., Krogdahl, S., Lyche, T. (eds.) From Object-Orientation to Formal Methods. LNCS, vol. 2635, pp. 96–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bicarregui, D.G.J., Dimitrakos, T., Maibaum, T.: Interpolation in practical formal development. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(1), 231–243 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Monk, J.D.: Mathematical Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1976)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 1(2), 245–257 (1979)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Németi, I., Sain, I.: Cone-implicational subcategories and some Birkhoff-type theorems. In: Universal Algebra, vol. 29, pp. 535–578 (1982)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oppen, D.C.: Complexity, convexity and combinations of theories. Theoretical Computer Science 12, 291–302 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Popescu, A., Şerbănuţă, T., Roşu, G.: A semantic approach to interpolation. Technical Report UIUCDCS-R-2005-2643, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roşu, G., Goguen, J.: On equational Craig interpolation. Journal of Universal Computer Science 6, 194–200 (2000)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rodenburg, P.H.: Interpolation in conditional equational logic. Fundam. Inform. 15(1), 80–85 (1991)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rodenburg, P.H.: A simple algebraic proof of the equational interpolation theorem. Algebra Universalis 28, 48–51 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rodenburg, P.H., van Glabbeek, R.: An interpolation theorem in equational logic. Technical Report CS-R8838, CWI (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: Specifications in an arbitrary institution. Information and Control 76, 165–210 (1988)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrei Popescu
    • 1
  • Traian Florin Şerbănuţă
    • 1
  • Grigore Roşu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations