Access Hoare Logic
arXiv:2511.01754v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Following Hoare's seminal invention, now called Hoare logic, to reason about correctness of computer programs, we advocate a related but fundamentally different approach to reason about access security of computer programs such as access control. We define the formalism, which we denote access Hoare logic, and present examples which demonstrate its usefulness and fundamental difference to Hoare logic. We prove soundness and completeness of access Hoare logic, and provide a link between access Hoare logic and standard Hoare logic. We also demonstrate a fundamental difference of access Hoare logic to other approaches, in particular incorrectness logic.
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Following Hoare's seminal invention, now called Hoare logic, to reason about correctness of computer programs, we advocate a related but fundamentally different approach to reason about access security of computer programs such as access control. We define the formalism, which we denote access Hoare logic, and present examples which demonstrate its usefulness and fundamental difference to Hoare logic. We prove soundness and completeness of access Hoare logic, and provide a link between access Hoare logic and standard Hoare logic. We also demonstrate a fundamental difference of access Hoare logic to other approaches, in particular incorrectness logic.
Subjects:
Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Symbolic Computation (cs.SC)
Cite as: arXiv:2511.01754 [cs.LO]
(or arXiv:2511.01754v3 [cs.LO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01754
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Arnold Beckmann [view email] [v1] Mon, 3 Nov 2025 17:04:49 UTC (48 KB) [v2] Wed, 5 Nov 2025 22:48:05 UTC (72 KB) [v3] Mon, 30 Mar 2026 22:00:29 UTC (33 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
announcearxiv
I Compared Make.com and n8n Across 20+ Client Deployments. Here Is My Verdict.
A client came to me in January with a Make.com scenario that had started as a simple lead routing workflow and mutated into a 47-step monster. It was timing out. It was burning through their operations credits. And when they needed to add an AI agent that could make decisions based on their CRM data, Make had no good answer. Three weeks later, after rebuilding the whole thing in n8n, their monthly automation bill dropped by 71% and the AI agent actually worked. That project pushed me to do something I had been putting off: a real, systematic comparison of Make.com and n8n for AI agent workflows. Not a feature checklist review. A practitioner's assessment built on two years of deploying both platforms across more than 20 client environments. Here is what I found, and more importantly, here
Silverback AI Chatbot Announces Development of AI Assistant Feature to Support Automated Digital Interaction and Workflow Management - Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Silverback AI Chatbot Announces Development of AI Assistant Feature to Support Automated Digital Interaction and Workflow Management Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!