The difference between dynamic logic and temporal logic To find the difference, I'd just encountered with assertions below about temporal logic in Wikipedia:


  another variant of modal logic sharing many common features with
  dynamic logic, differs from all of the above-mentioned logics by being
  what Pnueli has characterized as an "endogenous" logic, the others
  being "exogenous" logics. By this Pnueli meant that temporal logic
  assertions are interpreted within a universal behavioral framework in
  which a single global situation changes with the passage of time,
  whereas the assertions of the other logics are made externally to the
  multiple actions about which they speak. The advantage of the
  endogenous approach is that it makes no fundamental assumptions about
  what causes what as the environment changes with time. Instead a
  temporal logic formula can talk about two unrelated parts of a system,
  which because they are unrelated tacitly evolve in parallel. In effect
  ordinary logical conjunction of temporal assertions is the concurrent
  composition operator of temporal logic. The simplicity of this
  approach to concurrency has resulted in temporal logic being the modal
  logic of choice for reasoning about concurrent systems with its
  aspects of synchronization, interference, independence, deadlock,
  livelock, fairness, etc.


I could not realize the difference, considerably. Can't dynamic logic cover every time-driven aspect within arguments, as well as temporal logic?

Or why is dynamic not supposed to handle concurrent systems?

Would you please clear the case?
OK, dynamic logic adds assertions that specify what modal situation should exist following an action, however way this action is specified. In temporal logic the modal aspect is not emphasized. For example, if we consider dynamic alethic logic, the alethic bit would be missing from temporal logic. I hope this helps.