No special theory of programming is required to prove properties of programs if they are expressed as logical sentences.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• This theory doesn't have to correspond exactly to human behavior or social customs; we only need analogs useful for program correctness.claim0.787
  The speech act theory for programming can be simpler than human models.
• Temporal logic is too weak to express many important properties of programs.claim0.785
  Criticism of temporal logic as a verification tool.
• logical representation of programsconcept0.784
  The idea that programs can be expressed as logical sentences, enabling direct deductive verification.
• Proving that a program meets accomplishment specifications must be based on assumptions about the world, the information it makes available to the program and the effects of the program's actions as well as on facts about the program itself.claim0.782
  Claim about the nature of accomplishment verification.
• The correctness of programs is partly defined in terms of proper performance of the speech acts. Answers should be truthful and responsive, and promises should be kept. Sentences of logic expressing these forms of correctness can be generated automatically from the form of the program.claim0.768
  Second abstract claim.
• Programming systems deserve a theory tooclaim0.767
• It has long been said that programming languages need more of the features of natural language, but it has not been clear what the desirable features are.claim0.767
  Introduction, motivating the proposal.
• When a problem has a simple solution, a useful system will give programmers access to the simple solution; Parlog forces complex solutions to simple problems.claim0.758
  Critique that Parlog's abstraction level is too high and restrictive.