Hi Andrew,I don't know what's going wrong for certain, but here are two fixes that both by themselves work:- writing `p3' \in 0..97` instead of `0..100`- adding the flag `-maxSetSize 1030301`. `-maxSetSize 1030300` does not work.Given this behavior, my best hypothesis is that TLC doesn't like it when a state generates more next states than can fit into maxSetSize. By default the maxSetSize is 1 million. Without p3, p1' and p2' combinatorically generate 10201 states; floor(1e6 / 10201) = 98 = Cardinality(0..97).HOn Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 12:43 AM Andrew Samokish <asam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hello everyone,I`m making first steps with TLA and wrote a simple program, supposed to find some numbers with the given logic (i.e. x1 > x2, x = 5). I did setup it in such way: each step it expects 'random' value in variables the way numbers are choosen supposed to be improved later. The problem is: when (in next) I do set p3' \in 0..100 model checker answers that invariant is violated even before the init step. but when i do set something like p3' = 0 - it works. Program works with two variables without problems. Can you please help me? Seems question is trivial, but still not clear to me :(. here is my code:EXTENDS Naturals
VARIABLES p1, p2, p3
TypeOK == /\ p1 \in 0..100
/\ p2 \in 0..100
/\ p3 \in 0..100
Init == /\ p1 = 0
/\ p2 = 0
/\ p3 = 0
x1 == /\ p1' \in 0..100
/\ p2' \in 0..100
/\ p3' \in 0..100
Next == x1
Spec == Init /\ [][Next]_<<p1, p2, p3>>
NotSolved == ~( /\ p1 > p2 + 10
/\ p2 = 10)--
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+u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/ea6c08df-da01-40bc-8e2e-4dce8e3c882bn%40googlegroups.com.