Peirce Algebras

  • Chris Brink
  • Katarina Britz
  • Renate A. Schmidt
Conference paper
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)


In its modern form the algebra of relations has been under investigation by mathematicians since Tarski’s seminal paper of (1941). The main line of development has been the study of a class of algebras called relation algebras (Chin and Tarski 1951, Jónsson 1982), in parallel with developments such as Boolean algebras with operators (Jónsson and Tarski 1951/1952) and cylindric algebras (Henkin, Monk and Tarski 1985). Since the early seventies the algebra of relations has increasingly become of interest to computer scientists. Just as the notion of a partial function provides a natural model for deterministic programs, so the more general notion of a (binary) relation provides a natural model for nondeterministic programs. This idea has been exploited by various authors. For example, it is evident in Floyd-Hoare logic for program verification, it has been extended to specification in Hoare and He, Jifeng (1987), it figures in logics of programs such as dynamic logic (Parikh 1981, Harel 1984), and it was used in the early seventies to model recursive procedures (de Bakker and de Roever 1973, Hitchcock and Park 1972). Recently the algebra of relations has been extensively used in a graph-theoretic approach to programs by Schmidt and Ströhlein (1991). In modal logic, relation algebra features strongly in the Dutch-Hungarian cooperation on van Benthem’s (1991) new arrow logic (see Logic at Work, Proceedings of the Applied Logic Conference (1992)). Venema (1992) is another interdisciplinary study of relation algebra and multi-modal logic. The proof theory of relations is also of interest to computer scientists, and several relational inference systems are available (Wadge 1975, Hennessy 1980, Maddux 1983, Orlowska 1991).


Modal Logic Boolean Algebra Relation Algebra Dynamic Logic Early Seventy 
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.


  1. Brink, C. (1981), Boolean modules, Journal of Algebra 71 (2), 291–313.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Brink, C. (1988), On the application of relations, S. Afr. J. Philos. 7(2), 105–112.Google Scholar
  3. Brink, C. and Schmidt, R. A. (1992), Subsumption computed algebraically, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 23(2-9), 329–342.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chin, L. H. and Tarski, A. (1951), Distributive and modular laws in the arithmetic of relation algebras, Univ. Calif. Publ. Math. 1(9), 341–384.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. de Bakker, J. W. and de Roever, W. P. (1973), A calculus for recursive program schemes, in M. Nivat (ed.), Symposium on Automata, Formal Languages and Programming,North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Harel, D. (1984), Dynamic logic, inD. Gabbay and F. Guenther (eds), Handbook of Philosophical Logic,Vol. II, Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 497–604.Google Scholar
  7. Henkin, L., Monk, J. D. and Tarski, A. (1985), Cylindric Algebras: Part II,Vol. 115 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics,North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Hennessy, M. C. B. (1980), A proof-system for the first-order relational calculus, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 20, 96–110.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Hitchcock, P. and Park, D. (1972), Induction rules and termination proofs, in M. Nivat (ed.), Automata, Languages and Programming,North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Hoare, C. A. R. and He, Jifeng (1987), The weakest prespecification, Information Processing Letters 24, 127–132.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoare, C. A. R., He, Jifeng and Sanders, J. W. (1987), Prespecification in data refinement, Information Processing Letters 25, 71–76.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Jónsson, B. (1982), Varieties of relation algebras, Algebra Universalis 15 (3), 273–298.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Jónsson, B. and Tarski, A. (1951/1952), Boolean algebras with operators, Part I/II, American Journal of Mathematics 73/74, 891–939/127-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kozen, D. (1980), A representation theorem for models of *-free PDL, in J. de Bakker and J. van Leeuwen (eds), Automata, Languages and Programming,Vol. 85 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 351–362.Google Scholar
  15. Logic at Work, Proceedings of the Applied Logic Conference (1992), University of Amsterdam. Preprint. To appear.Google Scholar
  16. Maddux, R. D. (1983), A sequent calculus for relation algebras, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 25, 73–101.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Maddux, R. D. (1990). Personal communication with C. Brink.Google Scholar
  18. Orlowska, E. (1991), Relational interpretation of modal logic, in H. Andréka, J. D. Monk and I. Németi (eds), Algebraic Logic,Vol. 54 of Colloquia Mathematica Societatis János Bolyai,North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 443–471.Google Scholar
  19. Parikh, D. (1981), Propositional dynamic logic of programs: A survey, inE. Engeler (ed.), Logic of Programs,Vol. 125 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 102–144.Google Scholar
  20. Schmidt, G. and Ströhlein, T. (1991), Relations and Graphs,Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Schmidt, R. A. (1993), Terminological representation, natural language & relation algebra, in H. J. Ohlbach (ed.), Proceedings of the sixteenth German AI Conference (GWAI-92),Vol. 671 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence,Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 357–371.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt-Schauß, M. and Smolka, G. (1991), Attributive concept description with complements, Artificial Intelligence 48, 1–26.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Suppes, P. (1976), Elimination of quantifiers in the semantics of natural language by use of extended relation algebras, Rev. Int. de Philosophie 30 (3-4), 243–259.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Tarski, A. (1941), On the calculus of relations, Journal of Symbolic Logic 6(3), 73–89.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. van Benthem, J. (1991), Logic and the flow of information, Technical Report, ILLC Prepub-lication Series for Logic, Semantics and Philosophy of Language LP-92-11,Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam. To appear.Google Scholar
  25. Venema, Y. (1992), Many-Dimensional Modal Logic,PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Wadge, W. W. (1975), A complete natural deduction system for the relational calculus, Theory of Computation Report 5,University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  27. Woods, W. A. and Schmölze, J. G. (1992), The KL-ONE family, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 23(2-5), 133–177.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Brink
    • 1
  • Katarina Britz
    • 1
  • Renate A. Schmidt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.Max-Planck-Institut für InformatikSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations