An Automata-Theoretic Completeness Proof for Interval Temporal Logic

Extended Abstract
  • Ben C. Moszkowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1853)


Interval Temporal Logic (ITL) is a formalism for reasoning about time periods. To date no one has proved completeness of a relatively simple ITL deductive system supporting infinite time and permitting infinite sequential iteration comparable to ω-regular expressions. We have developed a complete axiomatization for such a version of quantified ITL over finite domains and can show completeness by representing finite-state automata in ITL and then translating ITL formulas into them. Here we limit ourselves to finite time. The full paper (and another conference paper [15]) extends the approach to infinite time.


Temporal Logic Inference Rule Decision Procedure Regular Expression Axiom System 
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. [1]
    H. Bowman and S. J. Thompson. A complete axiomatization of Interval Temporal Logic with projection. Technical Report 6-00, Computing Lab., Univ. of Kent, UK, Jan. 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Cau and H. Zedan. Refining Interval Temporal Logic specifications. In M. Bertran and T. Rus, eds., Transformation-Based Reactive Systems Development, LNCS 1231, pp. 79–94. AMAST, Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B. Dutertre. Complete proof systems for first order interval temporal logic. In Proc. 10th LICS, pp. 36–43. IEEE Computer Soc. Press, June 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. J. Fischer and R. E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 18(2):194–211, Apr. 1979.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. W. S. Hale. Programming in Temporal Logic. PhD thesis, Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, Oct. 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Halpern, Z. Manna, and B. Moszkowski. A hardware semantics based on temporal intervals. In J. Diaz, ed., Proc. ICALP’ 83, LNCS 154, pp. 278–291. Springer-Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Y. Kesten and A. Pnueli. A complete proof system for QPTL. In Proc. 10th LICS, pp. 2–12. IEEE Computer Soc. Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Moszkowski. Reasoning about Digital Circuits. PhD thesis, Dept. Computer Science, Stanford Univ., 1983. Tech. rep. STAN-CS-83-970.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Moszkowski. A temporal logic for multi-level reasoning about hardware. In Proc. 6-th Int’l. Symp. on Computer Hardware Description Languages, pp. 79–90, Pittsburgh, Penn., May 1983. North-Holland Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. Moszkowski. A temporal logic for multilevel reasoning about hardware. Computer, 18:10–19, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. Moszkowski. Executing Temporal Logic Programs. Cambridge U. Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    B. Moszkowski. Some very compositional temporal properties. In E.-R. Olderog, ed., Programming Concepts, Methods and Calculi, IFIP Transactions A-56, pp. 307–326. IFIP, Elsevier Science B.V (North-Holland), 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Moszkowski. Compositional reasoning about projected and infinite time. In Proc. 1st IEEE Int’l Conf. on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS’95), pp. 238–245. IEEE Computer Soc. Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    B. Moszkowski. Compositional reasoning using Interval Temporal Logic and Tempura. In W.-P. deRoever et al., eds., Compositionality: The Significant Difference, LNCS 1536, pp. 439–464. Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    B. Moszkowski. A complete axiomatization of interval temporal logic with infinite time. In Proc. 15th Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2000). IEEE Computer Soc. Press, June 2000.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. Paech. Gentzen-systems for propositional temporal logics. In E. Börger et al., eds., Proc. 2nd Workshop on Computer Science Logic, Duisburg (FRG), LNCS 385, pp. 240–253. Springer-Verlag, Oct. 1988.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    V. R. Pratt. Semantical considerations on Floyd-Hoare logic. In 17-th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 109–121, 1976.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. Rosner and A. Pnueli. A choppy logic. In Proc. 1st LICS, pp. 306–313. IEEE Computer Soc. Press, June 1986.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Siefkes. Decidable Theories I: Büchi’s Monadic Second Order Successor Arithmetic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 120. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Wang Hanpin and Xu Qiwen. Temporal logics over infinite intervals. Technical Report 158, UNU/IIST, Macau, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Zhou Chaochen, C. A. R. Hoare, and A. P. Ravn. A calculus of durations. Inf. Process. Lett., 40(5):269–276, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben C. Moszkowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Technology Research Lab.SERCentre Hawthorn BuildingDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterGreat Britain

Personalised recommendations