Proofs (sequent calculus, natural deduction) and imperative algorithms (pseudocodes) are two well-known coexisting concepts. Then what is their relationship? Our answer is that \[ imperative\ algorithms\ =\ proofs\ with\ cuts \] This observation leads to a generalization to pseudocodes which we call {\it logical pseudocodes}. It is similar to natural deduction proof of computability logic\cite{Jap03,Jap08}. Each statement in it corresponds to a proof step in natural deduction. Therefore, the merit over pseudocode is that each statement is guaranteed to be correct and safe with respect to the initial specifications. It can also be seen as an extension to computability logic web (\colw) with forward reasoning capability.
翻译:证据( 序列计算、 自然扣减) 和必用算法( 假冒码) 是两个广为人知的共存概念 。 那么它们之间的关系又是什么? 我们的答案是 \ [ 强制\ 算法\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 逻辑伪代码 \ \ \ 。 它与可兼容性逻辑/ 逻辑\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \