Proof methods of declarative properties of definite programs

Deransart, Pierre

doi:10.1016/0304-3975(93)90107-5

Cited by 39 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…. , B n ∈ S then H ∈ S. Deransart (1993) attributes this result to (Clark 1979). It should be well known, but is often unacknowledged.…”

Section: Theoremmentioning

confidence: 95%

Logic + control: On program construction and verification

Drabent

2017

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This 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.

show abstract

“…. , B n ∈ S then H ∈ S. Deransart (1993) attributes this result to (Clark 1979). It should be well known, but is often unacknowledged.…”

Section: Theoremmentioning

confidence: 95%

Logic + control: On program construction and verification

Drabent

2017

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, B n ∈ S ∪ { ! } then H ∈ S. Deransart [Der93] attributes this method to [Cla79]. See [Dra14,DM05] for examples and discussion.…”

Section: Declarative Notions Of Correctness and Completenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proving completeness of logic programs with the cut

Drabent

2017

Form. Asp. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Completeness of a logic program means that the program produces all the answers required by its specification. The cut is an important construct of programming language Prolog. It prunes part of the search space, this may result in a loss of completeness. This paper proposes a way of proving completeness of programs with the cut. The semantics of the cut is formalized by describing how SLD-trees are pruned. A sufficient condition for completeness is presented, proved sound, and illustrated by examples.

show abstract

“…Note that in Algorithm 2 every module is analyzed for CP GAT m , the set of all call patterns for a module m in the GAT . 9 If an SP + success policy is used in Algorithm 2, then LAT Proposition 6. Let LAT m be an answer table for module m. If an assertion is abstractly checked (resp.…”

Section: Verifying a Program Unit With No Intermodular Analysis Informentioning

confidence: 99%

Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning

2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We propose a modular, assertion-based system for verification and debugging of large logic programs, together with several interesting models for checking assertions statically in modular programs, each with different characteristics and representing different trade-offs. Our proposal is a modular and multivariant extension of our previously proposed abstract assertion checking model and we also report on its implementation in the CiaoPP system. In our approach, the specification of the program, given by a set of assertions, may be partial, instead of the complete specification required by traditional verification systems. Also, the system can deal with properties which cannot always be determined at compile-time. As a result, the proposed system needs to work with safe approximations: all assertions proved correct are guaranteed to be valid and all errors actual errors. The use of modular, context-sensitive static analyzers also allows us to introduce a new distinction between assertions checked in a particular context or checked in general.

show abstract

Proof methods of declarative properties of definite programs

Cited by 39 publications

References 15 publications

Logic + control: On program construction and verification

Logic + control: On program construction and verification

Proving completeness of logic programs with the cut

Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About