Advertisement

Synthesis of Strategies and the Hoare Logic of Angelic Nondeterminism

  • Konstantinos MamourasEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9034)

Abstract

We study a propositional variant of Hoare logic that can be used for reasoning about programs that exhibit both angelic and demonic nondeterminism. We work in an uninterpreted setting, where the meaning of the atomic actions is specified axiomatically using hypotheses of a certain form. Our logical formalism is entirely compositional and it subsumes the non-compositional formalism of safety games on finite graphs. We present sound and complete Hoare-style (partial-correctness) calculi that are useful for establishing Hoare assertions, as well as for synthesizing implementations. The computational complexity of the Hoare theory of dual nondeterminism is investigated using operational models, and it is shown that the theory is complete for exponential time.

Keywords

Atomic Action Winning Strategy Program Scheme Denotational Semantic Game Scheme 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Back, R.-J., Wright, J.: Refinement Calculus: A Systematic Introduction. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Celiku, O., Wright, J.v.: Implementing angelic nondeterminism. In: Tenth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 176–185 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, S.A.: Soundness and completeness of an axiom system for program verification. SIAM Journal on Computing 7(1), 70–90 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Communications of the ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kozen, D.: On Hoare logic and Kleene algebra with tests. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 1(1), 60–76 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mamouras, K.: The Hoare logic of deterministic and nondeterministic monadic recursion schemes (2014) (manuscript)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mamouras, K.: On the Hoare theory of monadic recursion schemes. In: Proceedings of CSL-LICS (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mamouras, K.: Synthesis of strategies using the Hoare logic of angelic and demonic nondeterminism (2015) (in preparation)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, C.E., Curtis, S.A., Rewitzky, I.: Modelling nondeterminism. In: Mathematics of Program Construction, pp. 228–251 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morgan, C.: Programming From Specifications. Prentice-Hall (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pauly, M., Parikh, R.: Game logic — An overview. Studia Logica 75(2), 165–182 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rewitzky, I.: Binary multirelations. In: de Swart, H., Orłowska, E., Schmidt, G., Roubens, M. (eds.) TARSKI. LNCS, vol. 2929, pp. 256–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas, W.: On the synthesis of strategies in infinite games. In: Mayr, E.W., Puech, C. (eds.) STACS 1995. LNCS, vol. 900, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations