Constraint-based correctness proofs for logic program transformations

Alberto Pettorossi; Maurizio Proietti; Valerio Senni

doi:10.1007/s00165-012-0233-8

Constraint-based correctness proofs for logic program transformations

Formal Aspects of Computing ◽

10.1007/s00165-012-0233-8 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 24 (4-6) ◽

pp. 569-594 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Alberto Pettorossi ◽

Maurizio Proietti ◽

Valerio Senni

Keyword(s):

Logic Program ◽

Program Transformations ◽

Correctness Proofs

Download Full-text

Automatic Correctness Proofs for Logic Program Transformations

Logic Programming - Lecture Notes in Computer Science ◽

10.1007/978-3-540-74610-2_25 ◽

2007 ◽

pp. 364-379 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Alberto Pettorossi ◽

Maurizio Proietti ◽

Valerio Senni

Keyword(s):

Logic Program ◽

Program Transformations ◽

Correctness Proofs

Download Full-text

Logic + control: On program construction and verification

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming ◽

10.1017/s1471068417000047 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

pp. 1-29

Author(s):

WŁODZIMIERZ DRABENT

Keyword(s):

Logic Program ◽

Practical Importance ◽

Operational Semantics ◽

Program Transformations ◽

Logic Programs ◽

Formal Reasoning ◽

Prolog Program ◽

Logic Control ◽

Sat Solver ◽

Program Construction

AbstractThis paper presents an example of formal reasoning about the semantics of a Prolog program of practical importance (the SAT solver of Howe and King). The program is treated as a definite clause logic program with added control. The logic program is constructed by means of stepwise refinement, hand in hand with its correctness and completeness proofs. The proofs are declarative – they do not refer to any operational semantics. Each step of the logic program construction follows a systematic approach to constructing programs which are provably correct and complete. We also prove that correctness and completeness of the logic program is preserved in the final Prolog program. Additionally, we prove termination, occur-check freedom and non-floundering.Our example shows how dealing with “logic” and with “control” can be separated. Most of the proofs can be done at the “logic” level, abstracting from any operational semantics.The example employs approximate specifications; they are crucial in simplifying reasoning about logic programs. It also shows that the paradigm of semantics-preserving program transformations may be not sufficient. We suggest considering transformations which preserve correctness and completeness with respect to an approximate specification.

Download Full-text