Math 2.0

Mathematical logic and foundations Definition

Computation tree logic

Builds on Propositional logicKripke semantics

Definition

Let APAP be a set of atomic propositions. A Kripke structure is a triple M=(S,R,L)M = (S, R, L) of a set SS of states, a relation R⊆S×SR \subseteq S \times S and a labelling L ⁣:S→𝒫(AP)L \colon S \to \mathcal{P}(AP). The relation RR is required to be total: each state has at least one successor. A path from ss is an infinite sequence π=s0s1s2⋯\pi = s_0 s_1 s_2 \cdots with s0=ss_0 = s and (si,si+1)∈R(s_i, s_{i+1}) \in R for all ii. The formulas of computation tree logic are given by the grammar φ::=p∣¬φ∣φ∧φ∣EXφ∣EGφ∣E[φ U φ],p∈AP.\varphi ::= p \mid \neg \varphi \mid \varphi \land \varphi \mid EX\varphi \mid EG\varphi \mid E[\varphi \, U \, \varphi], \qquad p \in AP. The relation M,s⊨φM, s \models \varphi is defined by induction on φ\varphi:

  1. M,s⊨pM, s \models p if and only if p∈L(s)p \in L(s), and ¬\neg, ∧\land have their Boolean meaning;
  2. M,s⊨EXφM, s \models EX\varphi if and only if M,s′⊨φM, s' \models \varphi for some s′s' with (s,s′)∈R(s, s') \in R;
  3. M,s⊨EGφM, s \models EG\varphi if and only if some path s0s1⋯s_0 s_1 \cdots from ss has M,si⊨φM, s_i \models \varphi for all i≥0i \ge 0;
  4. M,s⊨E[φ U ψ]M, s \models E[\varphi \, U \, \psi] if and only if some path s0s1⋯s_0 s_1 \cdots from ss and some j≥0j \ge 0 have M,sj⊨ψM, s_j \models \psi and M,si⊨φM, s_i \models \varphi for all 0≤i<j0 \le i < j.

Remarks

The other operators are abbreviations: EFφ=E[⊤ U φ]EF\varphi = E[\top \, U \, \varphi], AXφ=¬EX¬φAX\varphi = \neg EX \neg\varphi, AFφ=¬EG¬φAF\varphi = \neg EG \neg\varphi and AGφ=¬EF¬φAG\varphi = \neg EF \neg\varphi. The universal until A[φ U ψ]A[\varphi \, U \, \psi] is also expressible from these.

Example: let S={s,t}S = \set{s, t}, R={(s,s),(s,t),(t,t)}R = \set{(s, s), (s, t), (t, t)}, L(s)=∅L(s) = \emptyset and L(t)={p}L(t) = \set{p}. Then M,s⊨EFpM, s \models EF p, by the path s t t⋯s\,t\,t \cdots with j=1j = 1. Also M,s⊨EG¬pM, s \models EG \neg p, by the path s s s⋯s\,s\,s \cdots.

Non-example: M,s⊭AFpM, s \not\models AF p. Indeed AFp=¬EG¬pAF p = \neg EG \neg p, and M,s⊨EG¬pM, s \models EG \neg p.

Every CTL operator is a path quantifier followed directly by a temporal operator. For this reason the property FGpFG p of linear temporal logic, read on all paths, has no CTL equivalent.

Reading path

To understand this page from the ground up, read these 9 pages in order. The foundations come first.

Show the path as a graph
Each page uses the pages above it. The colour of the bar on a box shows how strong the evidence is, and the box also gives it as text. The list has the same pages.
  • no evidence level
  1. Kripke semantics concept
  2. Proposition concept
  3. Conjunction definition
  4. Disjunction definition
  5. Implication definition
  6. Negation definition
  7. Biconditional definition
  8. Propositional logic concept
  9. Computation tree logic definition

Further reading

  1. Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computation_tree_logic
About this page
Tag1DA0Y6KDF8
URIm2://1DA0Y6KDF8
Kinddefinition
WritingW0 stub
MSC03B44, 68Q60, 03B70
DefinesComputation tree logic
UsesPropositional logic, Kripke semantics
Changed3 November 2026

Markdown · JSON · Edit on GitHub

What this page needs for W1

  • an inventory row: the row of the inventory that the node accounts for (0 of 1)
  • a source with a locator (0 of 1)

The writing levels say how complete the text of a page is. They do not measure its truth.

What links here

No page links to this page yet.