scholarly journals Loop Analysis by Quantification over Iterations

10.29007/269p ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Gleiss ◽  
Laura Kovács ◽  
Simon Robillard
Keyword(s):  
Software Verification ◽  
Loop Analysis ◽  
Termination Analysis ◽  
Invariant Generation ◽  
Partial Correctness ◽  
First Order ◽  
Temporal Properties ◽  
Smt Solvers ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Soundness And Completeness

We present a framework to analyze and verify programs containing loops by using a first-order language of so-called extended expressions. This language can express both functional and temporal properties of loops. We prove soundness and completeness of our framework and use our approach to automate the tasks of partial correctness verification, termination analysis and invariant generation. For doing so, we express the loop semantics as a set of first-order properties over extended expressions and use theorem provers and/or SMT solvers to reason about these properties. Our approach supports full first-order reasoning, including proving program properties with alternation of quantifiers. Our work is implemented in the tool QuIt and successfully evaluated on benchmarks coming from software verification.

scholarly journals Reasoning About Loops Using Vampire

10.29007/tcvj ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Kovács ◽  
Simon Robillard
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
Program Correctness ◽  
Command Language ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Invariant Generation ◽  
Partial Correctness ◽  
First Order ◽  
Deductive Systems ◽  
Fully Automatic

In 2009, the symbol elimination method for loop invariant generationwas introduced, which used saturationtheorem proving in first-order logic to generate quantified invariantsof programs with arrays. Symbol elimination is fully automatic,requires no user guidance, and it is the first ever approach able togenerate invariants with alternations of quantifiers. In this paperwe describe a number of improvements and extensions to symbolelimination and invariant generation using first-order theoremproving, in particular the Vampire theorem prover. Rather than beinglimited to a specific programming language, our approach to reasoningabout loops in Vampire relies on a simple guarded command language forits input, which can be used as an interface for more complex andrealistic imperative languages. We propose new ways for extendingquantified loop properties describing valid loop properties, bysimplifying the properties over array updates and next staterelations. We also extend symbol elimination with pre- andpost-conditions of loops. We use the loop specification to generateonly invariants that are relevant, that is, invariants that are neededfor proving partial correctness of loops. Further, we turn symbolelimination into an automatic approach proving program correctness,providing an alternative method to Hoare-rule based loop verificationor other deductive systems. We present our newly redesignedimplementation of loop reasoning in Vampire and also report onexperimental results.

Weakly atomic-compact relational structures

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Fuhrken ◽  
W. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Abelian Group ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Compact Abelian Group ◽  
Finite Subset ◽  
Relational Structure ◽  
Similarity Type ◽  
First Order ◽  
Relational Structures ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Weakly Atomic

A relational structure is called weakly atomic-compact if and only if every set Σ of atomic formulas (taken from the first-order language of the similarity type of augmented by a possibly uncountable set of additional variables as “unknowns”) is satisfiable in whenever every finite subset of Σ is so satisfiable. This notion (as well as some related ones which will be mentioned in §4) was introduced by J. Mycielski as a generalization to model theory of I. Kaplansky's notion of an algebraically compact Abelian group (cf. [5], [7], [1], [8]).

scholarly journals ON PRODUCTS OF ELEMENTARILY INDIVISIBLE STRUCTURES

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-971
Author(s):  
NADAV MEIR
Keyword(s):  
New Products ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position

AbstractWe say a structure ${\cal M}$ in a first-order language ${\cal L}$ is indivisible if for every coloring of its universe in two colors, there is a monochromatic substructure ${\cal M}\prime \subseteq {\cal M}$ such that ${\cal M}\prime \cong {\cal M}$. Additionally, we say that ${\cal M}$ is symmetrically indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be symmetrically embedded in ${\cal M}$ (that is, every automorphism of ${\cal M}\prime$ can be extended to an automorphism of ${\cal M}$). Similarly, we say that ${\cal M}$ is elementarily indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be an elementary substructure. We define new products of structures in a relational language. We use these products to give recipes for construction of elementarily indivisible structures which are not transitive and elementarily indivisible structures which are not symmetrically indivisible, answering two questions presented by A. Hasson, M. Kojman, and A. Onshuus.

scholarly journals Word order in Latin locative constructions: a corpus study in Caesar’s De bello gallico

2011 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros Skopeteas
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Motion Verbs ◽  
Structural Domains ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Free Word

AbstractClassical Latin is a free word order language, i.e., the order of the constituents is determined by information structure rather than by syntactic rules. This article presents a corpus study on the word order of locative constructions and shows that the choice between a Theme-first and a Locative-first order is influenced by the discourse status of the referents. Furthermore, the corpus findings reveal a striking impact of the syntactic construction: complements of motion verbs do not have the same ordering preferences with complements of static verbs and adjuncts. This finding supports the view that the influence of discourse status on word order is indirect, i.e., it is mediated by information structural domains.

scholarly journals Making Automatic Theorem Provers more Versatile

10.29007/n6j7 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Cruanes
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theorem Provers ◽  
Smt Solvers ◽  
Automatic Theorem Provers ◽  
Automatic Theorem

We argue that automatic theorem provers should become more versatile and should be able to tackle problems expressed in richer input formats. Salient research directions include (i) developing tight combinations of SMT solvers and first-order provers; (ii) adding better handling of theories in first-order provers; (iii) adding support for inductive proving; (iv) adding support for user-defined theories and functions; and (v) bringing to the provers some basic abilities to deal with logics beyond first-order, such as higher-order logic.

On Axiomatizability of Non-Commutative Lp-Spaces

2007 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-534
Author(s):  
C. Ward Henson ◽  
Yves Raynaud ◽  
Andrew Rizzo
Keyword(s):  
Hilbert Spaces ◽  
Normed Space ◽  
The Other ◽  
Space Structures ◽  
Operator Spaces ◽  
Infinite Dimensions ◽  
Schatten Classes ◽  
Lp Spaces ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language

AbstractIt is shown that Schatten p-classes of operators between Hilbert spaces of different (infinite) dimensions have ultrapowers which are (completely) isometric to non-commutative Lp-spaces. On the other hand, these Schatten classes are not themselves isomorphic to non-commutative Lp spaces. As a consequence, the class of non-commutative Lp-spaces is not axiomatizable in the first-order language developed by Henson and Iovino for normed space structures, neither in the signature of Banach spaces, nor in that of operator spaces. Other examples of the same phenomenon are presented that belong to the class of corners of non-commutative Lp-spaces. For p = 1 this last class, which is the same as the class of preduals of ternary rings of operators, is itself axiomatizable in the signature of operator spaces.

Characterizations of Axiomatic Categories of Models Canonically Isomorphic to (Quasi-)Varieties

1988 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Hébert
Keyword(s):  
Forgetful Functor ◽  
Canonical Isomorphism ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Algebraic Language ◽  
Algebraic Constructions

AbstractLet be the category of all homomorphisms (i.e. functions preserving satisfaction of atomic formulas) between models of a set of sentences T in a finitary first-order language L. Functors between two such categories are said to be canonical if they commute with the forgetful functors. The following properties are characterized syntactically and also in terms of closure of for some algebraic constructions (involving products, equalizers, factorizations and kernel pairs): There is a canonical isomorphism from to a variety (resp. quasivariety) in a finitary expansion of L which assigns to a model its (unique) expansion. This solves a problem of H. Volger.In the case of a purely algebraic language, the properties are equivalent to:“ is canonically isomorphic to a finitary variety (resp. quasivariety)” and, for the variety case, to “the forgetful functor of is monadic (tripleable)”.

An axiomatization of the logic with the rough quantifier

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 608-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Krynicki ◽  
Hans-Peter Tuschik
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Order Structure ◽  
Partition Model ◽  
Weak Model ◽  
First Order ◽  
Basic Properties ◽  
Generalized Quantifier ◽  
Order Language ◽  
The Right

We consider the language L(Q), where L is a countable first-order language and Q is an additional generalized quantifier. A weak model for L(Q) is a pair 〈, q〉 where is a first-order structure for L and q is a family of subsets of its universe. In case that q is the set of classes of some equivalence relation the weak model 〈, q〉 is called a partition model. The interpretation of Q in partition models was studied by Szczerba [3], who was inspired by Pawlak's paper [2]. The corresponding set of tautologies in L(Q) is called rough logic. In the following we will give a set of axioms of rough logic and prove its completeness. Rough logic is designed for creating partition models.The partition models are the weak models arising from equivalence relations. For the basic properties of the logic of weak models the reader is referred to Keisler's paper [1]. In a weak model 〈, q〉 the formulas of L(Q) are interpreted as usual with the additional clause for the quantifier Q: 〈, q〉 ⊨ Qx φ(x) iff there is some X ∊ q such that 〈, q〉 ⊨ φ(a) for all a ∊ X.In case X satisfies the right side of the above equivalence we say that X is contained in φ(x) or, equivalently, φ(x) contains X.

Martin's axiom in the model theory of LA

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-176
Author(s):  
W. Richard Stark
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Equivalence Theorem ◽  
Compactness Theorem ◽  
Compactness Result ◽  
First Order ◽  
Martin's Axiom ◽  
New Class ◽  
Martin’S Axiom ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Omitting Types

Working in ZFC + Martin's Axiom we develop a generalization of the Barwise Compactness Theorem which holds in languages of cardinality less than . Next, using this compactness theorem, an omitting types theorem for fewer than types is proved. Finally, in ZFC, we prove that this compactness result implies Martin's Axiom (the Equivalence Theorem). Our compactness theorem applies to a new class of theories—ccΣ-theories—which generalize the countable Σ-theories of Barwise's theorem. The Omitting Types Theorem and the Equivalence Theorem serve as examples illustrating the use of ccΣ-theories.Assume = (A, ε) or = (A, ε R1,…,Rm) where is admissible. L() is the first-order language with constants for elements of A and relation symbols for relations in . LA is A ⋂ L∞ω where the L of L∞ω is any language in A. A theory T in LA is consistent if there is no derivation in A of a contradiction from T. is LA with new constants ca for each a and A. The basic terms of consist of the constants of and the terms f(ca1,…,cam) built directly from constants using functions f of . The symbol t is used for basic terms. A theory T in LA is Σ if it is defined by a formula of L(). The formula φ⌝ is a logical equivalent of ¬φ defined by: (1) φ⌝ = ¬φ if φ is atomic; (2) (¬φ)⌝ = φ (3) (⋁φ∈Φ φ)⌝ = ⋀φ∈Φ φ⌝; (4) (⋀φ∈Φ φ) ⋁φ∈Φ φ⌝; (5) (∃χφ(x))⌝ ∀χφ⌝(x); ∀χφ(x))⌝ = ∃χφ⌝(x).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document