Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Concurrent Logical Framework: The Propositional Fragment

  • Conference paper
Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2003)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 3085))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present the propositional fragment CLF0 of the Concurrent Logical Framework (CLF). CLF extends the Linear Logical Framework to allow the natural representation of concurrent computations in an object language. The underlying type theory uses monadic types to segregate values from computations. This separation leads to a tractable notion of definitional equality that identifies computations differing only in the order of execution of independent steps. From a logical point of view our type theory can be seen as a novel combination of lax logic and dual intuitionistic linear logic. An encoding of a small Petri net exemplifies the representation methodology, which can be summarized as “concurrent computations as monadic expressions”.

This research was sponsored in part by the NSF under grants CCR-9988281, CCR-0208601, CCR-0238328, and CCR-0306313, and by NRL under grant N00173-00-C-2086.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, R.: A modular hierarchy of logical frameworks. In: Berardi, S., Coppo, M., Damiani, F. (eds.) TYPES 2003. LNCS, vol. 3085, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreoli, J.-M.: Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(3), 197–347 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Asperti, A.: A logic for concurrency. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Asperti, A., Ferrari, G., Gorrieri, R.: Implicative formulae in the ‘proofs as computations’ analogy. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Francisco, January 1990, pp. 59–71. ACM Press, New York (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barber, A.: Dual intuitionistic linear logic. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-96-347, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh (September 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Basin, D., Matthews, S.: Logical frameworks. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bekkers, Y., Tarau, P.: Monadic constructs for logic programming. In: Lloyd, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS 1995), Portland, Oregon, December 1995, pp. 51–65. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bellin, G., Scott, P.J.: On the π-calculus and linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 135, 11–65 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Benton, P.N., Wadler, P.: Linear logic, monads, and the lambda calculus. In: Clarke, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, New Brunswick, New Jersey, July 1996, pp. 420–431. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bruni, R., Montanari, U.: Zero-safe nets: Comparing the collective and individual token approaches. Information and Computation 156(1–2), 46–89 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Cervesato, I.: Petri nets and linear logic: a case study for logic programming. In: Alpuente, M., Sessa, M.I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1995 Joint Conference on Declarative Programming — GULP-PRODE 1995, Marina di Vietri, Italy, pp. 313–318 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cervesato, I.: A Linear Logical Framework. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino (February 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cervesato, I.: Typed MSR: Syntax and examples. In: Gorodetski, V.I., Skormin, V.A., Popyack, L.J. (eds.) MMM-ACNS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2052, pp. 159–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cervesato, I., Pfenning, F.: A linear logical framework. Information & Computation 179(1), 19–75 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Cervesato, I., Pfenning, F., Walker, D., Watkins, K.: A concurrent logical framework II: Examples and applications. Technical Report CMU-CS-02- 102, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chirimar, J.L.: Proof Theoretic Approach to Specification Languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (May 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Bruijn, N.G.: Algorithmic definition of lambda-typed lambda calculus. In: Huet, G., Plotkin, G. (eds.) Logical Environment, pp. 131–145. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Felty, A.: Encoding dependent types in an intuitionistic logic. In: Huet, G., Plotkin, G.D. (eds.) Logical Frameworks, pp. 214–251. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Halstead, R.H.: Multilisp: A language for parallel symbolic computation. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 7(4), 501–539 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Harper, R., Honsell, F., Plotkin, G.: A framework for defining logics. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 40(1), 143–184 (1993)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Hodas, J., Miller, D.: Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic. Information and Computation 110(2), 327–365 (1994); A preliminary version appeared in the Proceedings of the Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 32–42 (July 1991)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Honsell, F., Miculan, M., Scagnetto, I.: Pi-calculus in (co)inductive type theories. Theoretical Computer Science 253(2), 239–285 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Ishtiaq, S., Pym, D.: A relevant analysis of natural deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(6), 809–838 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Kobayashi, N., Yonezawa, A.: ACL — A concurrent linear logic programming paradigm. In: Miller, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1993 International Logic Programming Symposium, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 279–294. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Luo, Z.: PAL+: A lambda-free logical framework. Journal of Functional Programming 13(2), 317–338 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J.: From Petri nets to linear logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1, 66–101 (1991); Revised version of paper in LNCS 389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J.: From Petri nets to linear logic through categories: A survey. Journal on Foundations of Computer Science 2(4), 297–399 (1991)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Miller, D.: The π-calculus as a theory in linear logic: Preliminary results. In: Lamma, E., Mello, P. (eds.) ELP 1992. LNCS, vol. 660, pp. 242–265. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: the π-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Moggi, E.: Computational lambda calculus and monads. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. Asilomar, California, June 1989, pp. 14–23. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1989)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Moggi, E.: Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation 93(1), 55–92 (1991)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Pfenning, F.: The practice of logical frameworks. In: Kirchner, H. (ed.) CAAP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1059, pp. 119–134. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pfenning, F.: Structural cut elimination I. intuitionistic and classical logic. Information and Computation 157(1/2), 84–141 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Pfenning, F.: Intensionality, extensionality, and proof irrelevance in modal type theory. In: Halpern, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2001), Boston, MA, June 2001, pp. 221–230. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Pfenning, F.: Logical frameworks. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, pp. 1063–1147. Elsevier Science and MIT Press (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pfenning, F., Davies, R.: A judgmental reconstruction of modal logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 11, 511–540 (2001); Notes to an invited talk at the Workshop on Intuitionistic Modal Logics and Applications (IMLA 1999), Trento, Italy (July 1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Reed, J.: Proof irrelevance and strict definitions in a logical framework. Technical Report CMU-CS-02-153, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reppy, J.H.: Concurrent Programming in ML. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University,  

    Kevin Watkins & Frank Pfenning

  2. ITT Industries, AES Division,  

    Iliano Cervesato

  3. Department of Computer Science, Princeton University,  

    David Walker

Authors
  1. Kevin Watkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iliano Cervesato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Pfenning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino, Corso Svizzera 185, 10149, Torino, Italy

    Stefano Berardi

  2. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino,  

    Mario Coppo

  3. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino, Corso Svizzera, 185, I-10149, Torino, Italy

    Ferruccio Damiani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Watkins, K., Cervesato, I., Pfenning, F., Walker, D. (2004). A Concurrent Logical Framework: The Propositional Fragment. In: Berardi, S., Coppo, M., Damiani, F. (eds) Types for Proofs and Programs. TYPES 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3085. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24849-1_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24849-1_23

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22164-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24849-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation