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

*From*: Andrew Helwer <andrew.helwer@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:20:26 -0700 (PDT)*References*: <9448bd47-eee3-452d-bcfd-74d4a5a80595n@googlegroups.com>

The logical formula in your action property must be true or false of a pair of states. The []F temporal operator is true or false of an infinite series of states.

Andrew

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4 ns wrote:

If I have a property of the form[][A => (p /\ [] (q => r))]_vars (1)where A is an action and p,q,r are state predicates, I get two complaints:Level error in applying operator $SquareAct:The level of argument 1 exceeds the maximum level allowed by the operator.and=> has both temporal formula and action as arguments.If I remove the nested [] then both complaints go away (and TLC is fine with too)[][A => (p /\ (q => r))]_vars (2)However, even if I replace the A with another state predicate the second complaint still remains.Could someone tell me where I'm going wrong. I don't recall seeing any restriction on nesting of temporal operators in the Specifying Systems book but I could have quite easily missed it. Regarding why TLC accepts the second formula (2), I assume its "nice" because its considered a Box-Action formula?thanks

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/861a35d0-dc74-43a2-bbb1-c1015063bb0an%40googlegroups.com.

**Follow-Ups**:

**References**:

- Prev by Date:
**[tlaplus] Numerical correctness vs logical correctness** - Next by Date:
**[tlaplus] Re: Numerical correctness vs logical correctness** - Previous by thread:
**[tlaplus] Why is TLA_ complaining about this? (** - Next by thread:
**[tlaplus] Re: Why is TLA_ complaining about this? (** - Index(es):