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

*From*: aric.nappi@xxxxxxxxx*Date*: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:52:31 -0700 (PDT)

Hi all, I am reading Mr. Lamport's paper The Temporal Logic of Actions [0]. In section 5.6 of that paper, he lays out the proof rules of simple temporal logic and simple TLA. I managed to prove the validity of STL1-6 and Lattice and I have proven TLA1 and TLA2 using the previous rules, but I am stuck trying to prove INV1, which is I /\ [N]_f => I' ------------------- I /\ [][N]_f => []I where I is a predicate, N is an action, and f is a state function. I was thinking that you need to use either TLA1 or TLA2, but I have not had much luck. If anyone could point me in the right direction, such as by letting me know which proof rules are important in proving this rule, I would be grateful. Thanks [0] http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/pubs.html#lamport-actions -- 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/73c9e238-d51f-4f38-b7dd-4137fe456fc9%40googlegroups.com.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [tlaplus] Proving INV1***From:*Stephan Merz

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [tlaplus] for all, the transition condition is true?** - Next by Date:
**[tlaplus] Re: When to use TLA+.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [tlaplus] for all, the transition condition is true?** - Next by thread:
**Re: [tlaplus] Proving INV1** - Index(es):