Advertisement

A hyperdoctrinal view of concurrent constraint programming

  • Prakash Panangaden
  • Vijay Saraswat
  • P. J. Scott
  • R. A. G. Seely
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 666)

Abstract

We study a relationship between logic and computation via concurrent constraint programming. In previous papers it has been shown that concurrent constraint programs can be modeled by closure operators. In the present paper we show that the programming interpretation via closure operators is intimately related to the logic of the constraints. More precisely, we show how the usual hyperdoctrinal description of first order logic can be functorially related to another hyperdoctrine built out of closure operators. The logical connectives map onto constructions on closure operators that turn out to model programming constructs, specifically conjunction becomes parallel composition and existential quantification becomes hiding of local variables.

Keywords

asynchronous systems closure operators constraint programs fibrations hyperdoctrines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K.R Apt and M.H. van Emden. Contributions to the theory of logic programming. JACM, 29(3):841–862, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Barr and C. Wells. Category Theory for Computing Science. prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Berry and G. Boudol. The chemical abstract machine. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 81–94. ACM, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Boudol. Towards a lambda-calculus for concurrent and communicating systems. In J. Diaz, editor, TAPSOFT 89, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 351, pages 149–161. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. Gierz, K.H. Hoffman, K. Keimel, J.D.Lawson, M.Mislove, and D.S.Scott, editors. A compendium of continuous lattices. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Leon Henkin, J. Donald Monk, and Alfred Tarski. Cylindric Algebras (Part I). North Holland Publishing Company, 1971.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. M. E. Hyland and A. M. Pitts. The theory of constructions: Categorical semantics and topos-theoretic models. In Categories in Computer Science and Logic, pages 137–199. AMS, 1987. AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series 92.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Jacobs. Fibrations. Submitted to Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Jagadeesan and P. Panangaden. A domain-theoretic model of a higher-order process calculus. In M. Paterson, editor, Proceedings of the 17th International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming, pages 181–194. Springer-Verlag, 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 443.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Jagadeesan, P. Panangaden, and K. Pingali. A fully abstract semantics for a functional language with logic variables. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 294–303, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Jagadeesan and K. Pingali. A higher order functional language with logic variables. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Peter Johnstone. Stone Spaces, volume 3 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Kahn. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In Information Processing 74, pages 993–998. North-Holland, 1977. [14] R.A. Kowalski and M.H. van Emden. The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM, 23(4):733-742, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. [15]
    F. W. Lawvere. Functorial semantics of algebraic theories. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 50:869–872, 1963.Google Scholar
  15. [16]
    D. Pavlović. Predicates and Fibrations. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [17]
    V. Saraswat. Concurrent Constraint Programming Languages. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1989. To appear Doctoral Dissertation Award and Logic Programming Series, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. [18]
    V. Saraswat. The category of constraint systems is cartesian closed. In Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium On Logic In Computer Science, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. [19]
    Vijay Saraswat and Martin Rinard. Concurrent constraint programming. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 232–245, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [20]
    Vijay Saraswat, Martin Rinard, and Prakash Panangaden. Semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [21]
    D. Scott. Data types as lattices. SIAM Journal of Computing, 5(3):522–587, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. [22]
    D. S. Scott. Domains for denotational semantics. In Ninth International Colloquium On Automata Languages And Programming. Springer-Verlag, 1982. Lecture Notes In Computer Science 140.Google Scholar
  22. [23]
    R. A. G. Seely. Hyperdoctrines, natural deduction and the beck conditions. Zeitschr. f. math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math., 29:505–542, 1983.Google Scholar
  23. [24]
    R. A. G. Seely. Categorical semantics for higher-order polymorphic lambda calculus. J. Symb. Logic, 52(4):969–989, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prakash Panangaden
    • 1
  • Vijay Saraswat
    • 2
  • P. J. Scott
    • 3
  • R. A. G. Seely
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Xerox PARCPalo AltoUSA
  3. 3.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.McGill University and John Abbott CollegeMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations