Hoare logic
formal system with a set of logical rules for reasoning rigorously about the correctness of computer programs

Hoare logic (also known as Floyd–Hoare logic or Hoare rules) is a formal system with a set of logical rules for reasoning rigorously about the correctness of computer programs. It was proposed in 1969 by the British computer scientist and logician Tony Hoare, and subsequently refined by Hoare and other researchers. The original ideas were seeded by the work of Robert W. Floyd, who had published a similar system for flowcharts.
Hoare triple
The central feature of Hoare logic is the Hoare triple. A triple describes how the execution of a piece of code changes the state of the computation. A Hoare triple is of the form
{
P
}
C
{
Q
}
{\displaystyle \{P\}C\{Q\}}
where
P
{\displaystyle P}
and
Q
{\displaystyle Q}
are assertions and
C
{\displaystyle C}
is a command.
P
{\displaystyle P}
is named the precondition and
Q
{\displaystyle Q}
the postcondition: when the precondition is met, executing the command establishes the postcondition. Assertions are formulae in predicate logic.
Hoare logic provides axioms and inference rules for all the constructs of a simple imperative programming language. In addition to the rules for the simple language in Hoare's original paper, rules for other language constructs have been developed since then by Hoare and many other researchers.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Hoare logic” is formal system with a set of logical rules for reasoning rigorously about the correctness of computer programs. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Hoare, logic and formal, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “formal system with a set of logical rules for reasoning rigorously about the correctness of computer programs” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 14, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1375924. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1969.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Hoare logic”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Hoare logic primary sources, Hoare logic archive and Hoare research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Hoare logic”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Hoare logic” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.