Proposition algebra

Abstract

Sequential propositional logic deviates from conventional propositional logic by taking into account that during the sequential evaluation of a propositional statement, atomic propositions may yield different Boolean values at repeated occurrences. We introduce “free valuations” to capture this dynamics of a propositional statement's environment. The resulting logic is phrased as an equationally specified algebra rather than in the form of proof rules, and is named “proposition algebra.” It is strictly more general than Boolean algebra to the extent that the classical connectives fail to be expressively complete in the sequential case. The four axioms for free valuation congruence are then combined with other axioms in order define a few more valuation congruences that gradually identify more propositional statements, up to static valuation congruence (which is the setting of conventional propositional logic).

Proposition algebra is developed in a fashion similar to the process algebra ACP and the program algebra PGA, via an algebraic specification which has a meaningful initial algebra for which a range of coarser congruences are considered important as well. In addition, infinite objects (i.e., propositional statements, processes and programs respectively) are dealt with by means of an inverse limit construction which allows the transfer of knowledge concerning finite objects to facts about infinite ones while reducing all facts about infinite objects to an infinity of facts about finite ones in return.

References

1. Baeten, J. C. M. and Weijland, W. P. 1990. Process Algebra. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. Belnap, N. D. 1977. A useful four-valued logic. In Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, J. Dunn and G. Epstein, Eds. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 8--37.
3. Bergstra, J. A., Bethke, I., and Ponse, A. 2007. Thread algebra and risk assessment services. In Proceedings of the Logic Colloquium. C. Dimitracopoulos, L. Newelski, and D. Normann, Eds. Cambridge Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 28. 1--17.
4. Bergstra, J. A., Bethke, I., and Rodenburg, P. H. 1995. A propositional logic with 4 values: true, false, divergent and meaningless. J. Appl. Non-Classi. Logics 5, 2, 199--218.
5. Bergstra, J. A. and Klop, J. W. 1984. Process algebra for synchronous communication. Inf. Cont. 60, 1--3, 109--137.
6. Bergstra, J. A. and Middelburg, C. A. 2007. Thread algebra for strategic interleaving. Form. Asp. Comput. 19, 4, 445--474.
7. Bergstra, J. A. and Ponse, A. 1998a. Bochvar-McCarthy logic and process algebra. Notre Dame J. Form. Logic 39, 4, 464--484.
8. Bergstra, J. A. and Ponse, A. 1998b. Kleene's three-valued logic and process algebra. Inf. Proc. Lett. 67, 2, 95--103.
9. Bergstra, J. A. and Ponse, A. 2005. A bypass of Cohen's impossibility result. In Proceedings of the European Grid Conference (EGC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3470. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1097--1106.
10. Bergstra, J. A. and Ponse, A. 2007. Execution architectures for program algebra. J. Appl. Logic 5, 1, 170--192.
11. Bloom, S. L. and Tindell, R. 1983. Varieties of “if-then-else”. SIAM J. Comput. 12, 4, 677--707.
12. Cohen, F. 1987. Computer viruses -- theory and experiments. Comput. Sec. 6, 22--35.
13. Cohen, F. 2001. Reply to ‘Comment on “A Framework for Modelling Trojans and Computer Virus Infection.”’ Comput. J. 44, 4, 326--327.
14. Fokkink, W. J. 2000. Introduction to Process Algebra. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science, An EATCS Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
15. Hähnle, R. 2005. Many-valued logic, partiality, and abstraction in formal specification languages. Logic J. IGPL 13, 4, 415--433.
16. Hayes, I. J., Jifeng, H., Hoare, C. A. R., Morgan, C. C., Roscoe, A. W., Sanders, J. W., Sorensen, I. H., Spivey, J. M., and Sufrin, B. A. 1987. Laws of programming. Comm. ACM 3, 8, 672--686.
17. Hoare, C. A. R. 1985a. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
18. Hoare, C. A. R. 1985b. A couple of novelties in the propositional calculus. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 31, 2, 173--178.
19. Konikowska, B. 1996. Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine. Fund. Inf. 26, 2, 167--203.
20. McCarthy, J. 1963. A basis for a mathematical theory of computation. In Computer Programming and Formal Systems, P. Braffort and D. Hirshberg, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 33--70.
21. Mittelstaedt, P. 2004. Quantum logic and decoherence. Int. J. Theoret. Phys. 43, 6, 1343--1354.
22. Ponse, A. and van der Zwaag, M. B. 2007. Belnap's logic and conditional composition. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 388, 1--3, 319--336.
23. Ponse, A. and van der Zwaag, M. B. 2008. Risk assessment for one-counter threads. Theory Computi. Syst. 43, 563--582.
24. Regenboog, B. C. 2010. Reactive valuations. MS thesis, University of Amsterdam (arXiv:1101.3132vl{cs.LO}.)
25. Rehder, W. 1980. Quantum logic of sequential events and their objectivistic probabilities. Int. J. Theoret. Physics 19, 3, 221--237.
26. Vu, T. D. 2008. Denotational semantics for thread algebra. J. Logic Alg. Prog. 74, 94--111.

Index Terms

• Theory of computation

  • Formal languages and automata theory

    • Formalisms

      • Algebraic language theory

  • Semantics and reasoning

    • Program semantics

      • Algebraic semantics