Correctness and completeness of logic programs

We discuss proving correctness and completeness of definite clause logic programs. We propose a method for proving completeness, while for proving correctness we employ a method which should be well known but is often neglected. Also, we show how to prove completeness and correctness in the presence of SLD-tree pruning, and point out that approximate specifications simplify specifications and proofs. We compare the proof methods to declarative diagnosis (algorithmic debugging), showing that approximate specifications eliminate a major drawback of the latter. We argue that our proof methods reflect natural declarative thinking about programs, and that they can be used, formally or informally, in every-day programming.Comment: 29 pages, 2 figures; with editorial modifications, small corrections and extensions. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1411.3015. Overlaps explained in "Related Work" (p. 21

Proving Correctness and Completeness of Normal Programs - a Declarative Approach

We advocate a declarative approach to proving properties of logic programs. Total correctness can be separated into correctness, completeness and clean termination; the latter includes non-floundering. Only clean termination depends on the operational semantics, in particular on the selection rule. We show how to deal with correctness and completeness in a declarative way, treating programs only from the logical point of view. Specifications used in this approach are interpretations (or theories). We point out that specifications for correctness may differ from those for completeness, as usually there are answers which are neither considered erroneous nor required to be computed. We present proof methods for correctness and completeness for definite programs and generalize them to normal programs. For normal programs we use the 3-valued completion semantics; this is a standard semantics corresponding to negation as finite failure. The proof methods employ solely the classical 2-valued logic. We use a 2-valued characterization of the 3-valued completion semantics which may be of separate interest. The presented methods are compared with an approach based on operational semantics. We also employ the ideas of this work to generalize a known method of proving termination of normal programs.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP). 44 page

Logic + control: An example

We present a Prolog program - the SAT solver of Howe and King - as a (pure) logic program with added control. The control consists of a selection rule (delays of Prolog) and pruning the search space. We construct the logic program together with proofs of its correctness and completeness, with respect to a formal specification. Correctness and termination of the logic program are inherited by the Prolog program; the change of selection rule preserves completeness. We prove that completeness is also preserved by one case of pruning; for the other an informal justification is presented. For proving correctness we use a method, which should be well known but is often neglected. For proving program completeness we employ a new, simpler variant of a method published previously. We point out usefulness of approximate specifications. We argue that the proof methods correspond to natural declarative thinking about programs, and that they can be used, formally or informally, in every-day programming

On completeness of logic programs

Program correctness (in imperative and functional programming) splits in logic programming into correctness and completeness. Completeness means that a program produces all the answers required by its specification. Little work has been devoted to reasoning about completeness. This paper presents a few sufficient conditions for completeness of definite programs. We also study preserving completeness under some cases of pruning of SLD-trees (e.g. due to using the cut). We treat logic programming as a declarative paradigm, abstracting from any operational semantics as far as possible. We argue that the proposed methods are simple enough to be applied, possibly at an informal level, in practical Prolog programming. We point out importance of approximate specifications.Comment: 20 page

Quantum Hoare logic with classical variables

Hoare logic provides a syntax-oriented method to reason about program correctness, and has been proven effective in the verification of classical and probabilistic programs. Existing proposals for quantum Hoare logic either lack completeness or support only quantum variables, thus limiting their capability in practical use. In this paper, we propose a quantum Hoare logic for a simple while language which involves both classical and quantum variables. Its soundness and relative completeness are proven for both partial and total correctness of quantum programs written in the language. Remarkably, with novel definitions of classical-quantum states and corresponding assertions, the logic system is quite simple and similar to the traditional Hoare logic for classical programs. Furthermore, to simplify reasoning in real applications, auxiliary proof rules are provided which support the introduction of disjunction and quantifiers in the classical part of assertions, and of super-operator application and superposition in the quantum part. Finally, a series of practical quantum algorithms, in particular the whole algorithm of Shor's factorisation, are formally verified to show the effectiveness of the logic

Labelled variables in logic programming: Foundations

none4noWe define a new notion of truth for logic programs extended with labelled variables, interpreted in non-Herbrand domains. There, usual terms maintain their Herbrand interpretations, whereas diverse domain-specific computational models depending on the local situation of the computing device can be expressed via suitably-tailored labelled models. After some introductory examples, we define the theoretical model for labelled variables in logic programming (LVLP). Then, we present both the fixpoint and the operational semantics, and discuss their correctness and completeness, as well as their equivalence.openRoberta Calegari; Enrico Denti; Agostino Dovier; Andrea OmiciniRoberta Calegari; Enrico Denti; Agostino Dovier; Andrea Omicin