Advertisement

Deterministic Programs

  • Krzysztof R. Apt
  • Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog
Part of the Texts and Monographs in Computer Science book series (MCS)

Abstract

In a deterministic program there is at most one instruction to be executed “next”, so that from a given initial state only one execution sequence is generated. In classical programming languages like Pascal, only deterministic programs can be written. In this chapter we study a small class of deterministic programs, which will be included in all other classes of programs studied in this book.

Keywords

Proof System Proper State Proof Theory Correctness Formula Correctness Proof 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Apt81]
    K.R. Apt. Ten years of Hoare’s logic, a survey, part I. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 3: 431–483, 1981.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bak80]
    J.W. de Bakker. Mathematical Theory of Program Correctness. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [Coo78]
    S.A. Cook. Soundness and completeness of an axiom system for program verification. SIAM Journal on Computing, 7 (1): 70–90, 1978.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Dij75]
    E.W. Dijkstra. Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs Communications of the ACM, 18: 453–457, 1975.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Dij76]
    E.W. Dijkstra. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [Dij82]
    E.W. Dijkstra. Selected Writings on Computing. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. F10671 R. Floyd. Assigning meaning to programs In J.T. Schwartz, editor, Proceedings of Symposium on Applied Mathematics 19, Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 19–32, American Mathematical Society, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  8. [Gor75]
    G.A. Gorelick. A complete axiomatic system for proving assertions about recursive and nonrecursive programs Technical Report 75, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. Gor79] M.J.C. Gordon. The Denotational Description of Programming Languages An Introduction. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1979. Google Scholar
  10. Gri78] D. Gries. The multiple assignment statement. IEEE Transactions on Software EngineeringSE-4:89–93, March 1978. Google Scholar
  11. [Gri82]
    D. Gries. A note on a standard strategy for developing loop invariants and loops. Science of Computer Programming, 2: 207–214, 1982.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [Hoa69]
    C.A.R. Hoare. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 12: 576–580, 583, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. Hoa71] C.A.R. Hoare. Procedures and parameters: an axiomatic approach. In E. Engeler, editor, Proceedings of Symposium on the Semantics of Algorithmic Languages,pages 102–116, New York, 1971. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 188, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. HP79] M.C.B. Hennessy and G.D. Plotkin. Full abstraction for a simple programming language. In Proceedings of Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science,pages 108–120, New York, 1979. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 74, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. [HW73]
    C.A.R. Hoare and N. Wirth. An axiomatic definition of the programming language PASCAL. Acta Informatica, 2: 335–355, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Lau71]
    P.E. Lauer. Consistent formal theories of the semantics of programming languages. Technical Report 25.121, IBM Laboratory Vienna, 1971.Google Scholar
  17. [LS87]
    J. Loeckx and K. Sieber. The Foundation of Program Verification. Teubner-Wiley, Stuttgart, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. [0G76]
    S. Owicki and D. Gries. An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs. Acta Informatica, 6: 319–340, 1976.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [01d83]
    E.-R. Olderog. On the notion of expressiveness and the rule of adaptation. Theoretical Computer Science, 30: 337–347, 1983.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [Plo81]
    G.D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI-FN 19, Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  21. [Rey81]
    J.C. Reynolds. The Craft of Programming. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [SS71]
    D.S. Scott and C. Strachey. Towards a mathematical semantics for computer languages. Technical Report PRG-6, Programming Research Group, University of Oxford, 1971.Google Scholar
  23. [Sto77]
    J.E. Stoy. Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey Approach to Programming Language Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1977.Google Scholar
  24. [TZ88]
    J.V. Tucker and J.I. Zucker. Program Correctness over Abstract Data Types, with Error-State Semantics. North-Holland and CWI Monographs, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. [Zwi89]
    J. Zwiers. Compositionality, Concurrency and Partial Correctness — Proof Theories for Networks of Processes and Their Relationship. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 321, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof R. Apt
    • 1
  • Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog
    • 2
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations