CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Logic, programming, and type systemsLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeAdvanced Algebra and Logic

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Proving termination properties of prolog programs: A semantic approach

Open access
Baudinet, Marianne·1992·The Journal of Logic Programming
DOI 10.1016/0743-1066(92)90045-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0743-1066(92)90045-5

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Apt, 1989, On the Safe Termination of Prolog Programs, Sixth International Conference on Logic Programming, 353
  2. Apt, 1982, Contributions to the Theory of Logic Programming, J. ACM, 29, 841, 10.1145/322326.322339 · DOI
  3. Arbab, 1987, Operational and Denotational Semantics of Prolog, J. Logic Programming, 4, 309, 10.1016/0743-1066(87)90008-2 · DOI
  4. Boyer, 1975, Proving Theorems about LISP Functions, J. ACM, 22, 129, 10.1145/321864.321875 · DOI
  5. Brough, 1984, Some Practical Properties of Logic Programming Interpreters, International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 149
  6. Cartwright, 1984, Recursive Programs as Definitions in First Order Logic, SIAM J. Comput., 13, 374, 10.1137/0213026 · DOI
  7. Cartwright, 1979, First Order Programming Logic, Sixth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 68
  8. Cartwright, 1979, Recursive Programs as Functions in a First Order Theory, Proceedings of the 1978 International Conference on Mathematical Studies of Information Processing
  9. Clark, 1977, A First Order Theory of Data and Programs, Information Processing 77, Proceedings of IFIP Congress 77, 939
  10. Debray, 1988, Denotational and Operational Semantics for Prolog, J. Logic Programming, 5, 61, 10.1016/0743-1066(88)90007-6 · DOI
  11. Deransart, 1987, An Operational Formal Definition of Prolog, International Symposium on Logic Programming, 162
  12. Fitting, 1985, A Deterministic Prolog Fixpoint Semantics, J. Logic Programming, 2, 111, 10.1016/0743-1066(85)90014-7 · DOI
  13. Jones, 1984, Stepwise Development of Operational and Denotational Semantics for Prolog, International Symposium on Logic Programming, 281
  14. Ketonen, 1984, EKL—A Mathematically Oriented Proof Checker, Seventh International Conference on Automated Deduction
  15. Lassez, 1982, Fixed Point Theorems and Semantics: A Folk Tale, Inform. Process. Letters, 14, 112, 10.1016/0020-0190(82)90065-5 · DOI
  16. Manna, 1981, Deductive Synthesis of the Unification Algorithm, Sci. Comput. Programming, 1, 5, 10.1016/0167-6423(81)90004-6 · DOI
  17. McCarthy, 1977, Representation of Recursive Programs in First Order Logic, Draft Manuscript
  18. Morris, 1971, Another Recursion Induction Principle, C. ACM, 14, 351, 10.1145/362588.362598 · DOI
  19. Poole, 1985, On Eliminating Loops in Prolog, SIGPLAN Notices, 20, 38, 10.1145/988346.988350 · DOI
  20. Robinson, 1965, A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle, J. ACM, 12, 23, 10.1145/321250.321253 · DOI
  21. van Emden, 1976, The Semantics of Predicate Logic as a Programming Language, J. ACM, 23, 733, 10.1145/321978.321991 · DOI
  22. Van Gelder, 1987, Efficient Loop Detection in Prolog Using the Tortoise-and-Hare Technique, J. Logic Programming, 4, 23, 10.1016/0743-1066(87)90020-3 · DOI
  23. Vasak, 1986, Characterisation of Terminating Logic Programs, International Symposium on Logic Programming, 140

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 35

Metadata

Authors
Baudinet, M.
Affiliations
Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Corresponding author
Baudinet, Marianne
Venue
The Journal of Logic Programming
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1992-10
Volume
14
Issue
1-2
Pages
1-29
ISSN
0743-1066 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0743-1066(92)90045-5
OpenAlex
W1973337882
Cited by
35
References
0
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
The Journal of Logic Programming (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Advanced Algebra and Logic
Keywords
Prolog programs, program termination, termination proofs, first-order logic, program verification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review