survey
Open Access

A Calculational Deductive System for Linear Temporal Logic

Published:04 July 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Christel Baier and Joost-Pieter Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2006. Principles of Concurrent and Distributed Programming (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Pearson, Harlow, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2012. Mathematical Logic for Computer Science (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Edward Cohen. 1990. Programming in the 1990’s: An Introduction to the Calculation of Programs. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Edsger W. Dijkstra and Carel S. Scholten. 1990. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Michael A. E. Dummett. 1978. Truth and Other Enigmas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1994. A Logical Approach to Discrete Math. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1995. Equational propositional logic. Inform. Process. Lett. 53, 3 (1995), 145--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. David Gries and Fred B. Schneider. 1998. Adding the everywhere operator to propositional logic. J. Logic Comput. 8 (12 1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. G. E. Hughes and M. J. Cresswell. 1996. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Anne Kaldewaij. 1990. Programming: The Derivation of Algorithms. Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd., Hertfordshire, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Fred Kröger and Stephan Merz. 2008. Temporal Logic and State Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Zohar Manna and Amir Pnueli. 1992. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: v. 1, Specification. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Arthur N. Prior. 1967. Past, Present and Future. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenneth H. Rosen. 2007. Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Fred B. Schneider. 1997. On Concurrent Programming. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. George Tourlakis. 2001. On the soundness and completeness of equational predicate logics. J. Logic Comput. 11, 4 (2001), 623--653.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A Calculational Deductive System for Linear Temporal Logic

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Computing Surveys
      ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 53, Issue 3
      May 2021
      787 pages
      ISSN:0360-0300
      EISSN:1557-7341
      DOI:10.1145/3403423
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 July 2020
      • Online AM: 7 May 2020
      • Revised: 1 March 2020
      • Accepted: 1 March 2020
      • Received: 1 August 2019
      Published in csur Volume 53, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • survey
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!