# From specifications to programs: A fork-algebraic approach to bridge the gap

## Abstract

The development of programs from first-order specifications has as its main difficulty that of dealing with universal quantifiers. This work is focused in that point, i.e., in the construction of programs whose specifications involve universal quantifiers. This task is performed within a relational calculus based on *fork algebras*. The fact that first-order theories can be translated into equational theories in abstract fork algebras suggests that such work can be accomplished in a satisfactory way. Furthermore, the fact that these abstract algebras are representable guarantees that all properties valid in the standard models are captured by the axiomatization given for them, allowing the reasoning formalism to be shifted back and forth between any model and the abstract algebra. In order to cope with universal quantifiers, a new algebraic operation — *relational implication* — is introduced. This operation is shown to have deep significance in the relational statement of first-order expressions involving universal quantifiers. Several algebraic properties of the relational implication are stated showing its usefulness in program calculation. Finally, a non-trivial example of derivation is given to asses the merits of the relational implication as an specification tool, and also in calculation steps, where its algebraic properties are clearly appropriate as transformation rules.

## Keywords

Binary Relation Equational Theory Abstract Algebra Program Construction Lational Implication## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.Berghammer, R., Haeberer, A.M., Schmidt, G., and Veloso, P.A.S,.
*Comparing Two Different Approaches to Products in Abstract Relation Algebras*, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, AMAST '93, Springer Verlag, 1993, 167–176.Google Scholar - 2.Chin, L.H. and Tarski, A.,
*Distributive and Modular Laws in the Arithmetic of Relation Algebras*, in University of California Publications in Mathematics. University of California, 1951, 341–384.Google Scholar - 3.Frias, M.F., Aguayo N.G. and Novak B.,
*Development of Graph Algorithms with Fork Algebras*, in Proceedings of the XIX Latinamerican Conference on Informatics, 1993, 529–554.Google Scholar - 4.Frias, M.F., Baum, G.A., Haeberer, A.M. and Veloso, P.A.S.,
*Fork Algebras are Representable*, in Bulletin of the Section of Logic, University of Lódź, (24)2, 1995, pp.64–75.Google Scholar - 5.Frias, M.F., Haeberer, A.M. and Veloso, P.A.S.,
*A Finite Axiomatization for Fork Algebras*, to appear in Journal of the IGPL, 1996.Google Scholar - 6.Gyuris, V.,
*A Short Proof for Representability of Fork Algebras*, Journal of the IGPL, vol 3, N.5, 1995, pp.791–796.Google Scholar - 7.Haeberer, A.M., Baum, G.A. and Schmidt G.,
*On the Smooth Calculation of Relational Recursive Expressions out of First-Order Non-Constructive Specifications Involving Quantifiers*, in Proceedings of the Intl. Conference on Formal Methods in Programming and Their Applications, LNCS 735, Springer Verlag, 1993, 281–298.Google Scholar - 8.Haeberer, A.M. and Veloso, P.A.S.,
*Partial Relations for Program Derivation: Adequacy, Inevitability and Expressiveness*, in Constructing Programs from Specifications — Proceedings of the IFIP TC2 Working Conference on Constructing Programs from Specifications. North Holland., 1991, 319–371.Google Scholar - 9.Löwenheim, L.,
*Über Möglichkeiten im Relativkalkül*, Math. Ann. vol. 76, 1915, 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.Maddux, R.,
*Finitary Algebraic Logic*, Zeitschr. f. math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math., vol. 35, 1989, 321–332.Google Scholar - 11.Mikulás, S., Sain, I., Simon, A.,
*Complexity of Equational Theory of Relational Algebras with Projection Elements*. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, Vol.21, N.3, 103–111, University of Lódź, October.1992.Google Scholar - 12.Németi I.,
*Strong Representability of Fork Algebras, a Set Theoretic Foundation*, to appear in Journal of the IGPL, 1996.Google Scholar - 13.Sain, I. and Németi, I.,
*Fork Algebras in Usual as well as in Non-well-founded Set Theories*, preprint of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1994.Google Scholar - 14.Tarski, A.,
*On the Calculus of Relations*, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 6, 1941, 73–89.Google Scholar - 15.Tarski, A. and Givant, S.,
*A Formalization of Set Theory without Variables*, A.M.S. Coll. Pub., vol. 41, 1987.Google Scholar