2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40885-4_24
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Term Rewriting with Logical Constraints

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
41
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This difference is understandable by observing that the goal in [29] is to prove universal formulas about equational specifications by inductive theorem proving, whereas our goal is very different, namely, to prove existential reachability formulas about a concurrent system specified by a rewrite theory. More recently, C. Kop and N. Nishida [40] have proposed a way to unify the ideas regarding equational rewriting with logical constraints and have proposed in [41] an inductive method of proving properties of programs in an imperative language by their notion of symbolic rewriting modulo decidable constraints. The main difference with our approach is that, as in [29], their notion of symbolic rewriting is universal, and therefore completely different from our existential notion in Definition 7; furthermore, in [41] termination of the rewrite theory is required for inductive reasoning, whereas no termination is required at all in our setting.…”
Section: Related Work and Concluding Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This difference is understandable by observing that the goal in [29] is to prove universal formulas about equational specifications by inductive theorem proving, whereas our goal is very different, namely, to prove existential reachability formulas about a concurrent system specified by a rewrite theory. More recently, C. Kop and N. Nishida [40] have proposed a way to unify the ideas regarding equational rewriting with logical constraints and have proposed in [41] an inductive method of proving properties of programs in an imperative language by their notion of symbolic rewriting modulo decidable constraints. The main difference with our approach is that, as in [29], their notion of symbolic rewriting is universal, and therefore completely different from our existential notion in Definition 7; furthermore, in [41] termination of the rewrite theory is required for inductive reasoning, whereas no termination is required at all in our setting.…”
Section: Related Work and Concluding Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One similarity between the work in [41] and our work is that, to handle input-output in an imperative language, they allow, as we do, extra variables in the righthand sides of rewrite rules. In general, while approaches such as in [5,12,[27][28][29][38][39][40] address symbolic reasoning for equational theorem proving purposes, or apply these techniques to imperative program analysis and verification, even allowing sometimes extra variables in the right-hand sides of equations, e.g., [41,63,64], theses approaches are quite different from ours because of their predominant focus on equational reasoning for proving, often inductively, universal formulas, and/or on applications to, typically sequential, programming languages.…”
Section: Related Work and Concluding Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the context of rewrite systems, a similar idea was realized in [KN13]. There, sorted first-order rewrite theories consist of an interpreted and a free part, and computation on the interpreted part is relegated to an arbitrary model.…”
Section: Conclusion and Further Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, constrained rewriting systems are popular for these transformations, since logical constraints used for modeling the control flow can be separated from terms expressing intermediate states [2,3,6,9,13]. To capture the existing approaches for constrained rewriting in one setting, the framework of a logically constrained term rewriting system (an LCTRS, for short) has been proposed [7]. Transformations of C programs with integers, characters, arrays of integers, global variables, and so on into LCTRSs have been discussed in [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%