Proof systems for Hennessy-Milner Logic with recursion

  • Kim G. Larsen
Parallelism And Concurrency
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 299)


An extension of Hennessy-Milner Logic with recursion is presented. A recursively specified formula will have two standard interpretations: a minimal one and a maximal one. Minimal interpretations of formulas are useful for expressing liveness properties of processes, whereas maximal interpretations are useful for expressing safety properties. We present sound and complete proof systems for both interpretations for when a process satisfies a (possibly recursive) formula. The rules of the proof systems consist of an introduction rule for each possible structure of a formula and are intended to extend the work of Stirling and Winskel. Moreover the proof systems may be presented directly in PROLOG to yield a decision procedure for verifying when a finite-state process satisfies a specification given as a (possibly recursive) formula.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [A83]
    Aczel, P.: An Introduction to Inductive Definitions, North-Holland, in the Handbook of Mathematical Logic, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. [BMP]
    Ben-Ari, M., Pnueli, A. and Manna, Z.: The Temporal Logic of Branching Time, Acta Informatica, 20, pp 207–226, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. [BT]
    Bloom and Troeger: A Logical Characterization of Observation Equivalence, TCS, vol 35, no 1, 1985Google Scholar
  4. [BR]
    Brookes, S. and Rounds, R.: Behavioural Equivalence Relations Induced by Programming Logics, LNCS 154, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [CE]
    Clarke, E.M. and Emerson, E.A.: Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons using Branching Time Temporal Logic, in: Logics of Programs, LNCS 131, 52–71, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. [CES]
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A, Sistla, A.P.: Automatic Verification of Finite State Concurrent Systems Using Temporal Logic Specifications: A Practical Approach, Proc 10th ACM POPL, 117–126, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. [GS84]
    Graf, S. and Sifakis, J.: A modal Characterization of observational congruence on finite terms of CCS, LNCS 172, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [GS86]
    Graf, S. and Sifakis, J.: A Logic for the Specification and Proof of Regular Controllable Processes of CCS, Acta Informatica, 23, pp 507–527, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [GS85]
    Graf, S. Sifakis, J.: A Logic for the Description of Non-deterministic Programs and Their Properties, Information and Control, vol. 68, nos 1–3, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. [HM]
    Hennessy, M. and Milner, R.: Algebraic Laws for Nondeterminism and Concurrency, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. [K]
    Kozen, D.: Results on the Propositional Mu-Calculus, 9th ICALP, LNCS 140, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. [L]
    Larsen, K.G.: Proof Systems for Hennessy-Milner Logic with Recursion, Aalborg University, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, R 87-20, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. [MW]
    Manna, Z. and Wolper, P. Synthesis of Communicating Processes from Temporal Logic Specifications, LNCS 131, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. [M80]
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communicating Systems, LNCS 92, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. [M81]
    Milner, R.: A Modal Characterization of Observable Machine-behaviour, LNCS 112, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. [M83]
    Milner, R.: Calculi for Synchrony and Asynchrony, TCS 25, pp 267–310, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. [P]
    Park, D.: Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences, LNCS 84, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. [Pl]
    Plotkin, G.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, DAIMI-FN-19, Aarhus University, Computer Science Department, Denmark, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. [Pn85]
    Pnueli, A.: Linear and Branching Structures in the Semantics and Logics of Reactive Systems, 12th ICALP, LNCS 194, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. [St83]
    Stirling, C.: A Proof Theoretic Characterization of Observationl Equivalence, FCT-TCS Bangalore, To appear in TCS, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. [St85A]
    Stirling, C.: A Complete Proof System for a Subset of SCCS, LNCS 185, to appear in CAAP'85, 1985.Google Scholar
  22. [St85B]
    Stirling, C.: A Compositional Modal Proof System for a Subset of CCS, 12th ICALP, LNCS 194, full version to appear in TCS., 1985.Google Scholar
  23. [St86]
    Stirling, C.: Modal Logics for Communicating Systems, to appear in TCS., 1986.Google Scholar
  24. [T]
    Tarski, A.: A Lattice-Theoretical Fixpoint Theorem and its Applications, Pacific Journal of Math. 5, 1955.Google Scholar
  25. [W84]
    Winskel, G.: On the Composition and Decomposition of Assertions, LNCS 197, 1984.Google Scholar
  26. [W85]
    Winskel, G.: A Complete Proof System for SCCS with Modal Assertions, Technical Report, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim G. Larsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Aalborg University CentreDenmark

Personalised recommendations