Abadi & Lamport and stark: Towards a proof theory for stuttering, dense domains and refinement mappings

  • Eduard Diepstraten
  • Ruurd Kuiper
Technical Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 430)


Crucial in proving refinement between specifications (of concurrent programs) is the role of ghost variables. On one hand they enhance expressivity. On the other hand they introduce stuttering and, in the case of refinement mappings, lead to the non-existence of such mappings.

Semantically, the these problems are solved satisfactorily in the work of Abadi & Lamport [AL88]. Syntactically, however, their solutions have no obvious prooftheoretic counterpart. By formulating Abadi & Lamport's concepts within Stark's formalism for dense Linear Time Temporal Logic [Sta88] a step in this direction is made.


Temporal logic ghost variables stuttering refinement mappings simulation relations history and prophecy variables 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AL88]
    M. Abadi and L. Lamport. The existence of refinement mappings. In Third annual symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 165–175. IEEE, July 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [AS85]
    B. Alpern and F.B. Schneider. Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters, 21:181–185, 1985.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [BKP86]
    H. Barringer, R. Kuiper, and A. Pnueli. A really abstract concurrent model and its temporal logic. In 13th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 173–183, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [Die89]
    E.C.M. Diepstraten. Specifying observable behavior using temporal logic and auxiliary variables. Master's thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, July 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [Lam83a]
    L. Lamport. Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 5(2):190–222, September 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Lam83b]
    L. Lamport. What good is temporal logic. In R.E.A. Manson, editor, Information Processing 83: Proceedings of the IFIP 9th World Congress, pages 657–668. IFIP, Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland, September 1983.Google Scholar
  7. [Lam85]
    L. Lamport. An axiomatic semantics of concurrent programming languages. In K.R. Apt, editor, NATO ASI Series, vol. F13: Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 77–122. Springer-Verlag, January 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [Lam89]
    L. Lamport. A simple approach to specifying concurrent systems. Communications of the ACM, 32(1):32–45, January 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [MP82]
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Verification of concurrent programs: The temporal framework. In Acadeic Press, editor, The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, chapter 5, pages 215–273. International Lecture Series in Computer Science, London, 1982.Google Scholar
  10. [Sta88]
    E.W. Stark. Proving entailment between conceptual state specifications. Theoretical Computer Science, 56:135–154, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduard Diepstraten
    • 1
  • Ruurd Kuiper
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations