Constructors, Sufficient Completeness, and Deadlock Freedom of Rewrite Theories

Sufficient completeness has been throughly studied for equational specifications, where function symbols are classified into constructors and defined symbols. But what should sufficient completeness mean for a rewrite theory R = (Σ, E, R) with equations E and nonequational rules R describing concurrent transitions in a system? This work argues that a rewrite theory naturally has two notions of constructor: the usual one for its equations E, and a different one for its rules R. The sufficient completeness of constructors for the rules R turns out to be intimately related with deadlock freedom, i.e., R has no deadlocks outside the constructors for R. The relation between these two notions is studied in the setting of unconditional order-sorted rewrite theories. Sufficient conditions are given allowing the automatic checking of sufficient completeness, deadlock freedom, and other related properties, by propositional tree automata modulo equational axioms such as associativity, commutativity, and identity. They are used to extend the Maude Sufficient Completeness Checker from the checking of equational theories to that of both equational and rewrite theories. Finally, the usefulness of the proposed notion of constructors in proving inductive theorems about the reachability rewrite relation →R associated to a rewrite theory R (and also about the joinability relation ↓R) is both characterized and illustrated with an example.

[1]  Patrick Viry,et al.  Equational rules for rewriting logic , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  David A. Plaisted,et al.  Semantic Confluence Tests and Completion Methods , 1985, Inf. Control..

[3]  Florent Jacquemard,et al.  Ground reducibility is EXPTIME-complete , 2003, Inf. Comput..

[4]  José Meseguer,et al.  On the Completeness of Context-Sensitive Order-Sorted Specifications , 2007, RTA.

[5]  Hubert Comon,et al.  An Effective Method for Handling Initial Algebras , 1988 .

[6]  Paliath Narendran,et al.  On Ground-Confluence of Term Rewriting Systems , 1990, Inf. Comput..

[7]  Pierre Lescanne,et al.  Algebraic and Logic Programming , 1988, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Adel Bouhoula,et al.  Simultaneous checking of completeness and ground confluence for algebraic specifications , 2009, TOCL.

[9]  Narciso Martí-Oliet,et al.  Maude: specification and programming in rewriting logic , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Roberto Bruni,et al.  Semantic foundations for generalized rewrite theories , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  José Meseguer,et al.  Conditioned Rewriting Logic as a United Model of Concurrency , 1992, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Larry Wos,et al.  What Is Automated Reasoning? , 1987, J. Autom. Reason..

[13]  José Meseguer,et al.  Decision Procedures for Equationally Based Reasoning , 2008 .

[14]  Jean-Pierre Jouannaud,et al.  Automatic Proofs by Induction in Theories without Constructors , 1989, Inf. Comput..

[15]  Adel Bouhoula Using induction and rewriting to verify and complete parameterized specifications , 1996 .

[16]  Hubert Comon,et al.  Tree automata techniques and applications , 1997 .

[17]  Florent Jacquemard,et al.  Automated Induction with Constrained Tree Automata , 2008, IJCAR.

[18]  José Meseguer,et al.  Constructors, Sufficient Completeness and Deadlock Freedom of Generalized Rewrite Theories , 2010 .

[19]  Thomas Hillenbrand,et al.  On using ground joinable equations in equational theorem proving , 2003, J. Symb. Comput..

[20]  Mahesh Viswanathan,et al.  Propositional Tree Automata , 2006, RTA.

[21]  Tobias Nipkow,et al.  Ordered Rewriting and Confluence , 1990, CADE.

[22]  John V. Guttag,et al.  The specification and application to programming of abstract data types. , 1975 .

[23]  Klaus Becker Proving Ground Confluence and Inductive Validity in Constructor Based Equational Specifications , 1993, TAPSOFT.

[24]  Daniel J. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Sufficient-completeness, ground-reducibility and their complexity , 1991, Acta Informatica.

[25]  Philip Wadler Call-by-Value Is Dual to Call-by-Name - Reloaded , 2005, RTA.

[26]  Jörg H. Siekmann,et al.  8th International Conference on Automated Deduction , 1986, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[27]  José Meseguer,et al.  A Sufficient Completeness Reasoning Tool for Partial Specifications , 2005, RTA.

[28]  H. Comon Sufficient Completness, Term Rewriting Systems and Anti-Unification , 1986 .

[29]  AZEDDINE LAZREK,et al.  Tools for Proving Inductive Equalities, Relative Completeness, and omega-Completeness , 1990, Inf. Comput..

[30]  Paliath Narendran,et al.  On sufficient-completeness and related properties of term rewriting systems , 1987, Acta Informatica.

[31]  James J. Horning,et al.  The algebraic specification of abstract data types , 1978, Acta Informatica.

[32]  Tobias Nipkow,et al.  A decidability result about sufficient-completeness of axiomatically specified abstract data types , 1983 .

[33]  José Meseguer,et al.  Specification and proof in membership equational logic , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[34]  Emmanuel Kounalis,et al.  Testing for the Ground (Co-)Reducibility Property in Term-Rewriting Systems , 1992, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[35]  Hélène Kirchner,et al.  Computing constructor forms with non terminating rewrite programs , 2006, PPDP '06.

[36]  Maurice Nivat,et al.  Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures , 1989 .

[37]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Extensions to the Rippling-Out Tactic for Guiding Inductive Proofs , 1990, CADE.

[38]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Completion Without Failure11This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants DCR 85–13417 and DCR 85–16243. , 1989 .

[39]  Gérard P. Huet,et al.  Proofs by induction in equational theories with constructors , 1980, 21st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1980).