LARA

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
sav08:deciding_a_language_of_sets_and_relations [2008/04/03 13:45]
vkuncak created
sav08:deciding_a_language_of_sets_and_relations [2009/05/20 10:57]
piskac
Line 3: Line 3:
 Consider a simple language of sets: Consider a simple language of sets:
  
 +\[
 +\begin{array}{l}
 +   S ::= V \mid S \cup S \mid S \cap S \mid S \setminus S \mid \mathbf{U} \mid \emptyset \\
 +   A ::= (S = S) \mid (S \subseteq S) \mid card(S){=}c \mid card(S) \leq c \mid card(S) \geq c \\
 +   F ::= F \lor F \mid F \land F \mid \lnot F \mid A \\
 +   c ::= 0 \mid 1 \mid 2 \mid ...
 +\end{array}
 +\]
 +
 +We show that this language is decidable by reduction to universal class.
 +
 +While BAPA is more expressive with respect to cardinalities,​ the advantage of the present method is that it allows the use of certain relations.
  
   * [[http://​lara.epfl.ch/​~kuncak/​papers/​KuncakRinard05DecisionProceduresSetValuedFields.html|Decision Procedures for Set-Valued Fields]]   * [[http://​lara.epfl.ch/​~kuncak/​papers/​KuncakRinard05DecisionProceduresSetValuedFields.html|Decision Procedures for Set-Valued Fields]]
 +
 +However, see [[http://​lara.epfl.ch/​~kuncak/​papers/​WiesETAL09CombiningTheorieswithSharedSetOperations.html|On Combining Theories with Shared Set Operations]] for a way to combine BAPA with logics that support relations.