Abstract
This article surveys the linear temporal logic (LTL) literature and presents all the LTL theorems from the survey, plus many new ones, in a calculational deductive system. Calculational deductive systems, developed by Dijkstra and Scholten and extended by Gries and Schneider, are based on only four inference rules—Substitution, Leibniz, Equanimity, and Transitivity. Inference rules in the older Hilbert-style systems, notably modus ponens, appear as theorems in this calculational deductive system. This article extends the calculational deductive system of Gries and Schneider to LTL, using only the same four inference rules. Although space limitations preclude giving a proof of every theorem in this article, every theorem has been proved with calculational logic.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, A Calculational Deductive System for Linear Temporal Logic
- Roland Backhouse, D. Gries, W. M. Turski, and F. Dehne (Eds.). 1995. Special issue on the calculational method. Inf. Process. Lett. 53, 3 (1995).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Christel Baier and Joost-Pieter Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2006. Principles of Concurrent and Distributed Programming (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Pearson, Harlow, England.Google Scholar
- Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2012. Mathematical Logic for Computer Science (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag, London.Google Scholar
- Edward Cohen. 1990. Programming in the 1990’s: An Introduction to the Calculation of Programs. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
- Edsger W. Dijkstra. 1968. Letters to the editor: Go to statement considered harmful. Commun. ACM 11, 3 (Mar. 1968), 147--148. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/362929.362947Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Edsger W. Dijkstra and Carel S. Scholten. 1990. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. A. E. Dummett and E. J. Lemmon. 1959. Modal logics between S4 and S5. Zeitsch. Math. Logik Grund. Math. 5 (1959), 250--64.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Michael A. E. Dummett. 1978. Truth and Other Enigmas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- E. Allen Emerson. 1990. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science (Vol. B). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Chapter: “Temporal and Modal Logic,” 995--1072. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=114891.114907.Google Scholar
- Wim H. H. Feijen. 1990. Exercises in formula manipulation. In Formal Development of Programs, E. W. Dijkstra (Ed.). Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, NJ, 139--158.Google Scholar
- David Gries. 1999. Monotonicity in calculational proofs. In Correct System Design, Recent Insight and Advances, (to Hans Langmaack on the Occasion of His Retirement from His Professorship at the University of Kiel). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 79--85. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=646005.673872.Google Scholar
- David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1994. A Logical Approach to Discrete Math. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
- David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1995. Equational propositional logic. Inform. Process. Lett. 53, 3 (1995), 145--152.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1995. A new approach to teaching discrete mathematics. PRIMUS 5, 2 (1995), 113--138. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10511979508965779Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1995. Teaching math more effectively, through calculational proofs. Amer. Math. Month. 102, 8 (1995), 691--697. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2974638.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1998. Adding the everywhere operator to propositional logic. J. Logic Comput. 8 (12 1998).Google Scholar
- G. E. Hughes and M. J. Cresswell. 1996. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
- Anne Kaldewaij. 1990. Programming: The Derivation of Algorithms. Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd., Hertfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fred Kröger and Stephan Merz. 2008. Temporal Logic and State Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
- Zohar Manna and Amir Pnueli. 1992. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: v. 1, Specification. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
- Arthur N. Prior. 1967. Past, Present and Future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kenneth H. Rosen. 2007. Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- Fred B. Schneider. 1997. On Concurrent Programming. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- George Tourlakis. 2001. On the soundness and completeness of equational predicate logics. J. Logic Comput. 11, 4 (2001), 623--653.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
A Calculational Deductive System for Linear Temporal Logic
Recommendations
Constructive linear-time temporal logic: Proof systems and Kripke semantics
In this paper we study a version of constructive linear-time temporal logic (LTL) with the ''next'' temporal operator. The logic is originally due to Davies, who has shown that the proof system of the logic corresponds to a type system for binding-time ...
A Paraconsistent Linear-time Temporal Logic
Inconsistency-tolerant reasoning and paraconsistent logic are of growing importance not only in Knowledge Representation, AI and other areas of Computer Science, but also in Philosophical Logic. In this paper, a new logic, paraconsistent linear-time ...
Finite-trace linear temporal logic: coinductive completeness
Linear temporal logic (LTL) is suitable not only for infinite-trace systems, but also for finite-trace systems. In particular, LTL with finite-trace semantics is frequently used as a specification formalism in runtime verification, in artificial ...






Comments