It has been known since the seventies that the formulas of modal logic are invariant for bisimulations between possible worlds models — while conversely, all bisimulation-invariant first-order formulas are modally definable. In this paper, we extend this semantic style of analysis from modal formulas to dynamic program operations. We show that the usual regular operations are safe for bisimulation, in the sense that the transition relations of their values respect any given bisimulation for their arguments. Our main result is a (...) complete syntactic characterization of all first-order definable program operations that are safe for bisimulation. This is a semantic functional completeness result for programming, which may be contrasted with the more usual analysis in terms of computational power. The 'Safety Theorem' can be modulated in several ways. We conclude with a list of variants, extensions, and further developments. (shrink)

We consider algebras on binary relations with two main operators: relational composition and dynamic negation. Relational composition has its standard interpretation, while dynamic negation is an operator familiar to students of Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) (Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1991): given a relation R its dynamic negation R is a test that contains precisely those pairs (s,s) for which s is not in the domain of R. These two operators comprise precisely the propositional part of DPL.This paper contains a finite equational (...) axiomatization for these dynamic relation algebras. The completenessresult uses techniques from modal logic. We also lookat the variety generated by the class of dynamic relation algebras and note that there exist nonrepresentable algebras in this variety, ones which cannot be construedas spaces of relations. These results are also proved for an extension to a signature containing atomic tests and union. (shrink)

This paper is devoted to the formulation and investigation of a dynamic semantic interpretation of the language of first-order predicate logic. The resulting system, which will be referred to as ‘dynamic predicate logic’, is intended as a first step towards a compositional, non-representational theory of discourse semantics. In the last decade, various theories of discourse semantics have emerged within the paradigm of model-theoretic semantics. A common feature of these theories is a tendency to do away with the principle of compositionality, (...) a principle which, implicitly or explicitly, has dominated semantics since the days of Frege. Therefore the question naturally arises whether non-compositionality is in any way a necessary feature of discourse semantics. Since we subscribe to the interpretation of compositionality as constituting primarily a methodological principle, we consider this to be a methodological rather than an empirical question. As a consequence, the emphasis in the present paper lies on developing an alternative compositional semantics of discourse, which is empirically equivalent to its non-compositional brethren, but which differs from them in a principled methodological way. Hence, no attempts are made to improve on existing theories empirically. Nevertheless, as we indicate in section 5, the development of a compositional alternative may in the end have empirical consequences, too. First of all, it can be argued that the dynamic view on interpretation developed in this paper suggests natural and relatively easy to formulate extensions which enable one to deal with a wider range of phenomena than can be dealt with in existing theories. Moreover, the various approaches to the model-theoretic semantics of discourse that have been developed during the last decade, have constituted a ‘fresh start’ in the sense that much of what had been accomplished before was ignored, at least for a start. Of course, this is a justified strategy if one feels one is trying to develop a radically different approach to recalcitrant problems. However, there comes a time when such new approaches have to be compared with the older one, and when an assessment of the pros and cons of each has to be made. One of the main problems in semantics today, we feel, is that a semantic theory such as Montague grammar, and an approach like Kamp’s discourse representation theory, are hard to compare, let alone that it is possible to unify their insights and results.. (shrink)