Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-9dmbd Total loading time: 0.374 Render date: 2021-03-08T09:32:40.205Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2013

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Microsoft Research


Primal infon logic was introduced in 2009 in connection with access control. In addition to traditional logic constructs, it contains unary connectives p said indispensable in the intended access control applications. Propositional primal infon logic is decidable in linear time, yet suffices for many common access control scenarios. The most obvious limitation on its expressivity is the failure of the transitivity law for implication: $x \to y$ and $y \to z$ do not necessarily yield $x \to z$ . Here we introduce and investigate equiexpressive “transitive” extensions TPIL and TPIL* of propositional primal infon logic as well as their quote-free fragments TPIL0 and TPIL0* respectively. We prove the subformula property for TPIL0* and a similar property for TPIL*; we define Kripke models for the four logics and prove the corresponding soundness-and-completeness theorems; we show that, in all these logics, satisfiable formulas have small models; but our main result is a quadratic-time derivation algorithm for TPIL*.

Research Article
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.


Avron, A., & Lahav, O. (2009). Canonical constructive systems. Proceedings of TABLEAUX 2009, 6276.Google Scholar
Beklemishev, L., Blass, A., & Gurevich, Y.What is the logic of information? In preparation.
Beklemishev, L., & Gurevich, Y. (2012). Propositional primal logic with disjunction. Journal of Logic and Computation, published online May 29, 2012. doi:10.1093/logcom/exs018.Google Scholar
Bjørner, N., de Caso, G., & Gurevich, Y. (2012). From primal infon logic with individual variables to datalog. In Erdem, E., et al. ., editors. Correct Reasoning: Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Vol. 7265, pp. 7286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, A., & Gurevich, Y. (2010). Hilbertian deductive systems, infon logic, and datalog. Bulletin of the EATCS, 102, 122150. A slightly revised version in Microsoft Research Tech, Report MSR-TR-2011-81, June 2011.Google Scholar
Blass, A., Gurevich, Y., Moskał, , & Neeman, I. (2011). Evidential authorization. In Nanz, S., editor. The Future of Software Engineering. Springer, 7799.Google Scholar
Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2001). Introduction to Algorithms (second edition). MIT Press and McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cotrini, C., & Gurevich, Y. (2013). Basic primal infon logic. Journal of Logic and Computation.Google Scholar
Dantzin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., & Voronkov, A. (2001). Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 33(3), 374425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DKAL at CodePlex., viewed August 10, 2012.
Dowling, W., & Gallier, J. (1984). Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae. Journal of Logic Programming, 1, 267284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortnow, L. (2009). Shaving logs with unit cost., seen July 22, 2012.
Gabbay, D., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., & Zakharyaschev, M. (2003). Many-dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gurevich, Y. (2011). Two Notes on Propositional Primal Logic. Technical Report MSR-TR-2011-70, Microsoft Research, May 2011.Google Scholar
Gurevich, Y., & Neeman, I. (2008). DKAL: Distributed-knowledge authorization language. In Proceedings of CSF 2008. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 149162.Google Scholar
Gurevich, Y., & Neeman, I. (2009). DKAL 2 — A simplified and improved authorization language. Microsoft Research Tech Report MSR-TR-2009-11, February 2009.
Gurevich, Y., & Neeman, I. (2011). Infon logic: the propositional case. ACM Transactions on Computation Logic 12(2), Article 9, January 2011, and (slight revisied) Microsoft Research Tech. Report MSR-TR-2011-90, July 2011.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. (1995). The effect of bounding the number of primitive propositions and the depth of nesting on the complexity of modal logic. Artificial Intelligence, 75(2), 361372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., & Zakharyaschev, M. (2010). Islands of tractability for relational constraints: towards dichotomy results for the description logic EL, In Beklemishev, L., Goranko, V., and Shehtman, V., editors. Advances in Modal Logic, College Publications, Vol. 8, pp. 271291.Google Scholar
Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., & Zakharyaschev, M. (2011). On P/NP dichotomies for EL subsumption under relational constraints. In Proceedings of DL 2011.Google Scholar
Minoux, M. (1988). LTUR: A simplified linear-time unit resolution algorithm for Horn formulae and computer implementation. Information Processing Letters, 29(1), 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mints, G. (1992). Complexity of subclasses of the intuitionistic propositional calculus. BIT, 32, 6469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savateev, Y. (2009). Investigation of Primal Logic. Unpublished internship (at Microsoft Research) report.Google Scholar
van Dalen, D. (2008). Logic and Structure (fourth edition). Springer.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2012). Personal communication, January 7, 2012.
Visser, A., van Benthem, J., de Jongh, D., & de Lavalette, G. R. (2008). NNIL, a study in intuitionistic propositional logic. In Logic Group Preprint Series, Holland: Dept of Philosophy, Utrecht University, Vol. 111.Google Scholar
Wolter, F., & Zakharyaschev, M. (1999). Intuitionistic modal logic. In Cantini, A., Casari, E., and Minari, P., editors. Logic and Foundations of Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 227238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 29 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *