Arithmetical completeness in logics of programs

  • David Harel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 62)


We consider the problem of designing arithmetically complete axiom systems for proving general properties of programs; i.e. axiom systems which are complete over arithmetical universes, when all first-order formulae which are valid in such universes are taken as axioms. We prove a general Theorem of Completeness which takes care of a major part of the responsibility when designing such systems. It is then shown that what is left to do in order to establish an arithmetical completeness result, such as those appearing in [12] and [14] for the logics DL and DL+, can be described as a chain of reasoning which involves some simple utilizations of arithmetical induction. An immediate application of these observations is given in the form of an arithmetical completeness result for a new logic similar to that of Salwicki [22]. Finally, we contrast this discipline with Cook's [5] notion of relative completeness.


Function Symbol Axiom System Predicate Symbol Dynamic Logic Relative Completeness 
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.

9. References

  1. [1]
    deBakker, J.W. and L.G.L.T. Meertens. On the Completeness of the Inductive Assertion Method. J. of Computer and System Sciences, 11, 323–357. 1975.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    deBakker, J.W. and W.P. deRoever. A Calculus for Recursive Program Schemes. in Automata, Languages and Programming (ed. Nivat), 167–196. North Holland. 1972.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Banachowski, L. Modular Properties of Programs. Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Ser. Sci. Math. Astr. Phys. Vol. 23. No. 3. 1975.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Clarke, E.M. Programming Language Constructs for which it is impossible to obtain good Hoare-like Axiom Systems. Proc. 4th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. 10–20. Jan. 1977.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Cook, S.A. Soundness and Completeness of an Axiom System for Program Verification, SIAM J. Comp. Vol. 7, no. 1. Feb. 1978. (A revision of: Axiomatic and Interpretive Semantics for an Algol Fragment, TR-79. Dept. of Comuter Science, U. of Toronto. 1975.)Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Dijkstra, E.W. Cuarded Commands, Nondeterminacy and Formal Derivation of Programs. CACM Vol. 18, no. 8. 1975Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Floyd, R.W. Assigning Meaning to Programs. In J.T. Schwartz (ed.) Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science. Proc. Symp. in Applied Math. 19. Providence, R.I. American Math. Soc. 19–32. 1967.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Corelick, G.A. A Complete Axiomatic System for Proving Assertions about Recursive and Nonrecursive Programs. TR-75. Dept. of Computer Science, U. of Toronto. 1975.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Harel, D. Logics of Programs: Axiomatics and Descriptive Power. Ph.D. Thesis. Dept. of EECS. MIT, Cambridge MA. June. 1978.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Harel, D. Complete Axiomatization of Properties of Recursive Programs. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Harel, D. On the Correctness of Regular Deterministic Programs; A Unified Survey. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Harel, D., A.R. Meyer and V.R. Pratt. Computability and Completeness in Logics of Programs. Proc. 9th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 261–268, Boulder, Col., May 1977.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Harel, D., A. Pnueli and J. Stavi. Completeness Issues for Inductive Assertions and Hoare's Method. Technical Report, Dept of Appl. Math. Tel-Aviv U. Israel. Aug. 1976.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Harel, D. and V.R. Pratt. Nondeterminism in Logics of Programs. Proc. 5th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. Tucson, Ariz. Jan. 1978.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hoare, C.A.R. An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming. CACM 12, 576–580. 1969.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Lipton, R.J. A Necessary and Sufficient Condition for the Existence of Hoare Logics. 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, R.I. Oct. 1977.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Lipton, R.J. and L. Snyder. Completeness and Incompleteness of Hoare-like Axiom Systems. Manuscript. Dept. of Computer Science. Yale University, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Manna, Z. The Correctness of Programs. JCSS 3. 119–127. 1969.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Meyer, A.R. Equivalence of DL, DL+ and ADL for Regular Programs with Array Assignments. Manuscript. Lab. for Computer Science. MIT, Cambridge MA. August 1977.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Naur, P. Proof of Algorithms by General Snapshots. BIT 6. 310–316. 1966.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Pratt, V.R. Semantical Considerations on Floyd-Hoare Logic. 17th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 109–121, Oct. 1976.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Salwicki, A. Formalized Algorithmic Languages. Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Ser. Sci. Math. Astr. Phys. Vol. 18. No. 5. 1970.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Wand, M. A New Incompleteness Result for Hoare's System. Proc. 8th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 87–91. Hershey, Penn. May 1976.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Winklmann, K. Equivalence of DL and DL+ for regular programs. Manuscript, Lab. for Computer Science. MIT, Cambridge, MA. March. 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Harel
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Computer ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge

Personalised recommendations