[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*From*: Saswata Paul <paulsaswata1@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:23:07 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

The BY proof for step <2>3c is not going through.

-- I have been working on a proof using TLAPS, but I seem to be stuck at a simple step which should be very obvious.

So the following is a snippet from my proof :

` <2>3a. \A Q \in Quorum: \E a \in Q : maxVBal[a] \geq b OMITTED <2>3b. b \geq 0 OMITTED <2>3c. \A Q \in Quorum: \E a \in Q : maxVBal[a] \geq 0 BY <2>3a, <2>3b`

Shouldn't <2>3c be a simple logical consequence of <2>3a and <2>3b ? (Unless I am making an extremely silly error)

Is there a syntax/semantic error that is preventing the proof from going through or is it some limitation of the back end solvers that requires this simple proof to be broken even further?

Thank you

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tlaplus" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tlaplus+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/c3224133-5b5b-4e28-9300-cd4b7f8ac083%40googlegroups.com.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [tlaplus] Stuck on an obvious proof [TLAPS]***From:*Saksham Chand

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [tlaplus] Debugging endless model checking** - Next by Date:
**Re: [tlaplus] Stuck on an obvious proof [TLAPS]** - Previous by thread:
**[tlaplus] Re: Temporal logic model checking algorithm** - Next by thread:
**Re: [tlaplus] Stuck on an obvious proof [TLAPS]** - Index(es):