Modularizing the Elimination of r=0 in Kleene Algebra

Given a universal Horn formula of Kleene algebra with hypotheses of the form r = 0, it is already known that we can efficiently construct an equation which is valid if and only if the Horn formula is valid. This is an example of elimination of hypotheses, which is useful because the equational theory of Kleene algebra is decidable while the universal Horn theory is not. We show that hypotheses of the form r = 0 can still be eliminated in the presence of other hypotheses. This lets us extend any technique for eliminating hypotheses to include hypotheses of the form r = 0

The Structure of Differential Invariants and Differential Cut Elimination

The biggest challenge in hybrid systems verification is the handling of differential equations. Because computable closed-form solutions only exist for very simple differential equations, proof certificates have been proposed for more scalable verification. Search procedures for these proof certificates are still rather ad-hoc, though, because the problem structure is only understood poorly. We investigate differential invariants, which define an induction principle for differential equations and which can be checked for invariance along a differential equation just by using their differential structure, without having to solve them. We study the structural properties of differential invariants. To analyze trade-offs for proof search complexity, we identify more than a dozen relations between several classes of differential invariants and compare their deductive power. As our main results, we analyze the deductive power of differential cuts and the deductive power of differential invariants with auxiliary differential variables. We refute the differential cut elimination hypothesis and show that, unlike standard cuts, differential cuts are fundamental proof principles that strictly increase the deductive power. We also prove that the deductive power increases further when adding auxiliary differential variables to the dynamics

Proceedings of Sixth International Workshop on Unification

Swiss National Science Foundation; Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 314); Christ Church, Oxford; Oxford University Computing Laborator

A simple sequent calculus for nominal logic

Nominal logic is a variant of first-order logic that provides support for reasoning about bound names in abstract syntax. A key feature of nominal logic is the new-quantifier, which quantifies over fresh names (names not appearing in any values considered so far). Previous attempts have been made to develop convenient rules for reasoning with the new-quantifier, but we argue that none of these attempts is completely satisfactory. In this article we develop a new sequent calculus for nominal logic in which the rules for the new- quantifier are much simpler than in previous attempts. We also prove several structural and metatheoretic properties, including cut-elimination, consistency, and equivalence to Pitts' axiomatization of nominal logic

E-unification for subsystems of S4

This paper is concerned with the unification problem in the path logics associated by the optimised functional translation method with the propositional modal logics \textit{K}, \textit{KD}, \textit{KT}, \textit{KD4}, \textit{S4} and \textit{S5}. It presents improved unification algorithms for certain forms of the right identity and associativity laws. The algorithms employ mutation rules, which have the advantage that terms are worked off from the outside inward, making paramodulating into terms superfluous

Matching Logic

This paper presents matching logic, a first-order logic (FOL) variant for specifying and reasoning about structure by means of patterns and pattern matching. Its sentences, the patterns, are constructed using variables, symbols, connectives and quantifiers, but no difference is made between function and predicate symbols. In models, a pattern evaluates into a power-set domain (the set of values that match it), in contrast to FOL where functions and predicates map into a regular domain. Matching logic uniformly generalizes several logical frameworks important for program analysis, such as: propositional logic, algebraic specification, FOL with equality, modal logic, and separation logic. Patterns can specify separation requirements at any level in any program configuration, not only in the heaps or stores, without any special logical constructs for that: the very nature of pattern matching is that if two structures are matched as part of a pattern, then they can only be spatially separated. Like FOL, matching logic can also be translated into pure predicate logic with equality, at the same time admitting its own sound and complete proof system. A practical aspect of matching logic is that FOL reasoning with equality remains sound, so off-the-shelf provers and SMT solvers can be used for matching logic reasoning. Matching logic is particularly well-suited for reasoning about programs in programming languages that have an operational semantics, but it is not limited to this

Pseudo-contractions as Gentle Repairs

Updating a knowledge base to remove an unwanted consequence is a challenging task. Some of the original sentences must be either deleted or weakened in such a way that the sentence to be removed is no longer entailed by the resulting set. On the other hand, it is desirable that the existing knowledge be preserved as much as possible, minimising the loss of information. Several approaches to this problem can be found in the literature. In particular, when the knowledge is represented by an ontology, two different families of frameworks have been developed in the literature in the past decades with numerous ideas in common but with little interaction between the communities: applications of AGM-like Belief Change and justification-based Ontology Repair. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between pseudo-contraction operations and gentle repairs. Both aim to avoid the complete deletion of sentences when replacing them with weaker versions is enough to prevent the entailment of the unwanted formula. We show the correspondence between concepts on both sides and investigate under which conditions they are equivalent. Furthermore, we propose a unified notation for the two approaches, which might contribute to the integration of the two areas