Proving implications by algebraic approximation

  • Michael Codish
  • Grigory Mashevitzky
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 850)

Abstract

This paper applies techniques of algebraic approximation to provide effective algorithms to determine the validity of universally quantified implications over lattice structures. We generalize the known result which states that any semilattice is approximated in the two element lattice. We show that the validity of a universally quantified implication ψ over a possibly infinite domain can be determined by examining its validity over a simpler domain the size of which is related to the number of constants in ψ. Both the known as well as the new results have high potential in providing practical automated techniques in various areas of application in computer science.

Keywords

Logic Program Boolean Algebra Distributive Lattice Universal Algebra Subdirect Product 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Aiken and E. L. Wimmers. Solving systems of set constraints (extended abstract). In Proceedings, Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 329–340, Santa Cruz, California, June 22–25 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Birkhoff. Subdirect unions in univeral algebras. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 50:764–768, 1944.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Birkhoff. Lattice Theory. In AMS Colloquium Publication, third ed., 1967.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Bryant. The laws of finite pointed groups. Bull. London Math. Soc., 14(2), 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Bryant. Graph based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 35(8):677–691, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Bryant. Ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(3), 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Codish and B. Demoen. Analysing logic programs using “Prop”-ositional logic programs and a magic wand. In D. Miller, editor, Logic Programming — Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, pages 114–129, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 021-42, 1993. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Codish and B. Demoen. Deriving polymorphic type dependencies for logic programs using multiple incarnations of prop. Technical report, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel, 1994. Anonymous ftp: black.bgu.ac.il:pub/codish/type.dvi.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Corsini, K. Musumbu, A. Rauzy, and B. Le Charlier. Efficient bottom-up abstract interpretation of Prolog by means of constraint solving over symbolic finite domains. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Talin, Aug. 1993. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 238–252, Jan. 1977.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Grätzer. Universal Algebra. D. van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Grätzer. General Lattice Theory. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Kennedy. A survey of data flow analysis techniques. pages 5–54. Chapter 1 in [21].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. E. Knuth. The Art of Computer Programming, volume 3. Addison-Wesley, 1973.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Le Charlier and P. V. Hentenryck. Groundness analysis for Prolog: implementation and evaluation of the domain Prop. In Proceedings Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-based Program Manipulation, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Maĺcev. Subdirect products of models. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 109:264–266, 1956. In Russian and Chapter 5 in [18] (English translation).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Maĺcev. About homomorphisms on finite groups. In Učenye Zapiski Ivanov, volume 28, pages 49–60. Ped. Inst., 1958. In Russian.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Maĺcev. The Metamathematics of Algebraic Systems. North-Holland Publishing Company, 1971.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Maĺcev (Maltsev). Algebraic Systems. Springer-Verlag, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Melton, D. Schmidt, and G. Strecker. Galois connections and computer science applications. In D. P. et al, editor, Category Theory and Computer Programming, pages 299–312. Springer-Verlag, 1986. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 240.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. S. Muchnick and N. D. Jones. Program Flow Analysis: Theory and Applications. Prentice Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Neuman. Varieties of groups. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O. Ore. Galois connections. In Trans. AMS, volume 55, pages 493–513, 1944.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    B.M. Schein. On subdirectly irreducible semigroups. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 144:999–1002, 1962. In Russian.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Codish
    • 1
  • Grigory Mashevitzky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShebaIsrael

Personalised recommendations