The Böhm–Jacopini Theorem Is False, Propositionally

  • Dexter Kozen
  • Wei-Lung Dustin Tseng
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5133)


The Böhm–Jacopini theorem (Böhm and Jacopini, 1966) is a classical result of program schematology. It states that any deterministic flowchart program is equivalent to a while program. The theorem is usually formulated at the first-order interpreted or first-order uninterpreted (schematic) level, because the construction requires the introduction of auxiliary variables. Ashcroft and Manna (1972) and Kosaraju (1973) showed that this is unavoidable. As observed by a number of authors, a slightly more powerful structured programming construct, namely loop programs with multi-level breaks, is sufficient to represent all deterministic flowcharts without introducing auxiliary variables. Kosaraju (1973) established a strict hierarchy determined by the maximum depth of nesting allowed. In this paper we give a purely propositional account of these results. We reformulate the problems at the propositional level in terms of automata on guarded strings, the automata-theoretic counterpart to Kleene algebra with tests. Whereas the classical approaches do not distinguish between first-order and propositional levels of abstraction, we find that the purely propositional formulation allows a more streamlined mathematical treatment, using algebraic and topological concepts such as bisimulation and coinduction. Using these tools, we can give more mathematically rigorous formulations and simpler and more revealing proofs.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ashcroft, E., Manna, Z.: The translation of goto programs into while programs. In: Freiman, C.V., Griffith, J.E., Rosenfeld, J.L. (eds.) Proceedings of IFIP Congress 71, vol. 1, pp. 250–255. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1972)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Böhm, C., Jacopini, G.: Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two formation rules. In: Communications of the ACM, pp. 366–371 (May 1966)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaplan, D.M.: Regular expressions and the equivalence of programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 3, 361–386 (1969)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kosaraju, S.R.: Analysis of structured programs. In: Proc. 5th ACM Symp. Theory of Computing (STOC 1973), pp. 240–252. ACM, New York (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kozen, D.: Automata on guarded strings and applications. Matématica Contemporânea 24, 117–139 (2003)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Kozen.: Nonlocal flow of control and Kleene algebra with tests. Technical Report Computing and Information Science, Cornell University (April 2008); Proc. 23rd IEEE Symp. Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2008) (to appear, June 2008) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morris, P.H., Gray, R.A., Filman, R.E.: Goto removal based on regular expressions. J. Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 9(1), 47–66 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oulsnam, G.: Unraveling unstructured programs. The Computer Journal 25(3), 379–387 (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peterson, W., Kasami, T., Tokura, N.: On the capabilities of while, repeat, and exit statements. Comm. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 16(8), 503–512 (1973)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramshaw, L.: Eliminating goto’s while preserving program structure. Journal of the ACM 35(4), 893–920 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, M., Ossher, H.: Conversion of unstructured flow diagrams into structured form. The Computer Journal 21(2), 161–167 (1978)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dexter Kozen
    • 1
  • Wei-Lung Dustin Tseng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCornell University, IthacaNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations