<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<item>
  <id>02084327</id>
  <dt>a</dt>
  <an>02084327</an>
  <augroup>
    <au>Shilov, Nikolai V.</au>
    <au>Yi, Kwang</au>
  </augroup>
  <ti>On expressive and model checking power of propositional program logics.</ti>
  <so>Bj\o rner, Dines (ed.) et al., Perspectives of system informatics. 4th international Andrei Ershov memorial conference, PSI 2001, Akademgorodok, Novosibirsk, Russia, July 2--6, 2001. Revised papers. Berlin: Springer (ISBN 3-540-43075-X). Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2244, 39-46 (2001).</so>
  <py>2001</py>
  <pu>Berlin: Springer</pu>
  <lagroup>
    <la>EN</la>
  </lagroup>
  <ccgroup>
  </ccgroup>
  <utgroup>
  </utgroup>
  <cigroup>
  </cigroup>
  <ligroup>
    <li>http://link.springer.de/link/service/series/0558/bibs/2244/22440039.htm</li>
  </ligroup>
  <abgroup>
    <ab>Summary: We examine when a model checker for a propositional program logic can be used for checking another propositional program logic in spite of lack of expressive power of the first logic. We prove that (1) a branching time Computation Tree Logic CTL, (2) the propositional $\mu$-Calculus of D. Kozen $\mu$C, and (3) the second-order propositional program logic 2M of C. Stirling enjoy the equal model checking power in spite of difference in their expressive powers CTL $< \mu$ C $<$ 2M: every listed logic has a formula such that every model checker for this particular formula for models in a class closed w.r.t. finite models, Cartesian products and power-sets can be reused for checking all formulae of these logics in all models in this class. We also suggest a new second-order propositional program logic SOEPDL and demonstrate that this logic is more expressive than 2M, is as expressive as the Second-order Logic of monadic Successors of M. Rabin (S(n)S-Logic), but still enjoys equal model checking power with CTL, $\mu$C and 2M (in the same settings as above).</ab>
    <rv></rv>
  </abgroup>
</item>