A proof of ‘correctness’ for a mathematical algorithm cannot be relevant to executions of a program based on that algorithm because both the algorithm and the proof are based on assumptions that do not hold for computations carried out by real-world computers. Thus, proving the ‘correctness’ of an algorithm cannot establish the trustworthiness of programs based on that algorithm. Despite the (deceptive) sameness of the notations used to represent them, the transformation of an algorithm into an executable program (...) is a wrenching metamorphosis that changes a mathematical abstraction into a prescription for concrete actions to be taken by real computers. Therefore, it is verification of program executions (processes) that is needed, not of program texts that are merely the scripts for those processes. In this view, verification is the empirical investigation of: (a) the behavior that programs invoke in a computer system and (b) the larger context in which that behavior occurs. Here, deduction can play no more, and no less, a role than it does in the empirical sciences. (shrink)

This paper provides a review of Raymond Turner’s book Computational Artefacts. Towards a Philosophy of Computer Science. Focus is made on the definition of program correctness as the twofold problem of evaluating whether both the symbolic program and the physical implementation satisfy a set of specifications. The review stresses how these are not two separate problems. First, it is highlighted how formal proofs of correctness need to rely on the analysis of physical computational processes. Secondly, it is underlined (...) how software testing requires considering the formal relations holding between the specifications and the symbolic program. Such a mutual dependency between formal and empirical program verification methods is finally shown to influence the debate on the epistemological status of computer science. (shrink)

This is the first paper on constructive concurrent dynamic logic . For the first time, either for concurrent or sequential dynamic logic, we give a satisfactory treatment of what statements are forced to be true by partial information about the underlying computer. Dynamic logic was developed by Pratt [V. Pratt, Semantical considerations on Floyd–Hoare logic, in: 17th Annual IEEE Symp. on Found. Comp. Sci., New York, 1976, pp. 109–121, V. Pratt, Applications of modal logic to programming, Studia Logica 39 257–274] (...) for nondeterministic sequential programs, and by Peleg [D. Peleg, Concurrent dynamic logic, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 34 , D. Peleg, Communication in concurrent dynamic logic, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 35 ] for concurrent programs, for the purpose of proving properties of programs such as correctness. Here we define what it means for a dynamic logic formula to be forced to be true knowing only partial information about the results of assignments and tests. This informal CCDL semantics is formalized by intuitionistic Kripke frames modeling this partial information, and each such frame is interpreted as an idealized concurrent machine . In CCDL, proofs and deductions are ω-height, ω-branching, well-founded labeled subtrees of ωω. These are a generalization of the signed tableaux of Nerode [A. Nerode, Some lectures in modal logic, Technical Report, M.S.I. Cornell University, 1989, CIME Logic and Computer Science Montecatini Volume, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes, 1990, A. Nerode, Some lectures in intuitionistic logic, Technical Report, M.S.I. Cornell University, 1988, Marktoberdorf Logic and Computation NATO Summer School Volume, NATO Science Series, 1990 ] stemming from the prefix tableaux of Fitting [M.C. Fitting, Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logic, Reidel, 1983]. We demonstrate the correctness of our tableau proofs, define consistency properties, prove that consistency properties yield models, construct systematic tableaux, prove that systematic tableaux yield a consistency property, and conclude that CCDL is complete. This infinitary semantics and proof procedure will be the primary guide for defining, in a sequel, the correct finitary CCDL based on induction principles. FCCDL is suitable for implementation in constructive logic software systems such as Constable’s NUPRL or Huet-Coquand’s CONSTRUCTIONS. Our goal is to develop a constructive logic programming tool for specification and modular verification of programs in any imperative concurrent language, and for the extraction of concurrent programs from constructive proofs. Subsequent papers will introduce analogous logics for declarative and functional concurrent languages. (shrink)