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

*From*: Andreas Recke <Andreas.Recke@xxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 12:28:20 -0700 (PDT)*References*: <eb93e2f8-57ae-4da1-aa52-3d878107773dn@googlegroups.com> <B3061F52-42BE-4607-A7E5-D0594F1D878A@gmail.com> <af66b648-9ef7-4085-84db-b8bf0757ba92n@googlegroups.com> <EB5C67D6-4093-4237-A30E-FA7A72DDE86A@gmail.com>

Dear Stephan,

thank you for your kind response.

I solved the compilation issue - finally simply by updating to the latest Ubuntu version.

But now a second problem arises. I will go on with the next post.

Kind regards

Andreas

Stephan Merz schrieb am Montag, 8. August 2022 um 14:23:01 UTC+2:

Arrghhh ... I checked, my OCaml version is called "4.11.1+default-unsafe-string" [1], and I dimly recall that I installed that version for compiling tlapm.If you are using opam, something likeopam switch create 4.11.1+default-unsafe-stringshould install that version of the OCaml compiler, andopam switch set ...allows you to switch between different installed versions [2]. But since you say that 4.07.0 is the latest version, I gather that you installed OCaml using the default package manager of your OS, which may be behind what opam gives you.Hope this helps,Stephan[2] https://opam.ocaml.org, in particular https://opam.ocaml.org/doc/man/opam-switch.htmlOn 5 Aug 2022, at 22:45, Andreas Recke <Andrea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:Dear Stephan,many thanks for your kind and helpful response. I downloaded the cdot-enabled branch to my computer and made an in-place installation.I used the latest ocamlc version 4.07.0 which went nicely until it found an error that I think is not related to missing libraries (which should have popped up in the initialsource code section) but maybe a code error. Or do I just have an old library where StringSet.disjoint is not included?"configure" did not report any error.I hope you can help with this, too.Best regardsAndreasThe compiler error message was:cd `dirname expr/e_action.ml` \

&& ocamlopt -annot -g -warn-error +1+2+5+6+8+10..26+29..31+36 -I . -I backend -I frontend -I expr -I module -I proof -I util -I pars -I typesystem -I smt -I ../backend -I ../frontend -I ../expr -I ../module -I ../p

roof -I ../util -I ../pars -I ../typesystem -I ../smt -I .. -c `basename expr/e_action.ml`

File "e_action.ml", line 1760, characters 27-45:

Error: Unbound value StringSet.disjoint

Makefile:140: recipe for target 'expr/e_action.cmx' failed

make[1]: *** [expr/e_action.cmx] Error 2This is the corresponding section (in red) in the source code

let group_conjuncts cx conjuncts =

(* compute the primed variables of each conjunct *)

let primed_variables = List.map (collect_primed_vars cx) conjuncts in

(* return single group if any set of primed variables is `None` *)

let has_none = List.exists

(fun x -> match x with

| None -> true

| _ -> false) primed_variables in

if has_none then

[conjuncts]

else

begin

(* split into minimal classes with disjoint sets of primed variables *)

let primed_variables = List.map

(fun x -> match x with

| None -> assert false

| Some x -> StringSet.of_seq (Stdlib.List.to_seq x)) primed_variables in

let vars_conjuncts = List.map2 (fun a b -> (a, [b]))

primed_variables conjuncts in

(* (StringSet, expr list) list *)

let groups: (StringSet.t * (E_t.expr list)) list ref = ref [] in

let f (vars, es) =

let (other, intersecting) = List.partition

(fun (a, b) -> StringSet.disjoint a vars) !groups in

let f (vars_a, es_a) (vars_b, es_b) =

(StringSet.union vars_a vars_b, List.append es_a es_b) in

let merged = List.fold_left f (vars, es) intersecting in

groups := merged :: other in

List.iter f vars_conjuncts;

List.map (fun (vars, es) -> es) !groups

endStephan Merz schrieb am Donnerstag, 4. August 2022 um 16:22:50 UTC+2:Hello Andreas,thank you for using TLAPS and for your question about termination proofs.Let me first point out that the current distribution of TLAPS only supports proofs of safety properties. In particular, it has no support for reasoning about ENABLED, which in turn underlies the definition of fairness formulas, and the latter are a prerequisite for any proofs of liveness properties.However, if you are brave enough to install a development version of TLAPS [1], below is a proof of the theorem you were after. As you found out, you cannot apply priming to arbitrary temporal formulas but only to state predicates. Also, as stated above, use of the fairness condition is important for this proof, and therefore it is useful to simplify the predicate ENABLED <<Next>>_vars and replace it by the simple state predicate i>0.As you'll see, there are still a few rough edges in the proof, such as having to hide intermediate definitions before applying the induction rule, or inferring <1>3 from <1>2, which requires a mix of quantifier and temporal logic reasoning.Nevertheless, I hope that this example will give you an overall idea of how to write liveness proofs.Best regards,Stephan[1] The proof below was checked using the updated_enabled_cdot branch at https://github.com/tlaplus/tlapm/tree/updated_enabled_cdot, but I believe that the version at the master branch should also have worked.---------------------------- MODULE FinallyZero ----------------------------

EXTENDS Integers, Naturals, TLC, TLAPS, NaturalsInduction

CONSTANTS N

ASSUME NAssumption == N \in Int /\ N > 0

VARIABLES i

vars == <<i>>

Init == i = NNext == i > 0 /\ i' = i-1Spec == Init /\ [][Next]_vars /\ WF_vars(Next)

\* Type Invariant

TypeOk == i \in Int /\ i >= 0

\* Termination

Termination == i=0

\* Will terminate invariant

WillTerminate == <>(i=0)

\* Complete Invariant(* not an invariant because it has a "<>" subformula *)

Inv == TypeOk /\ WillTerminate(*

The formula is not level-correct, as SANY points out. You cannot prime

arbitrary temporal formulas in TLA, only state predicates.

THEOREM NextFinishes == ASSUME ~WillTerminate /\ Next => ~WillTerminate' PROVE FALSE

BY PTL DEF WillTerminate, Next*)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(* Proof of the algorithm. *)

(* Let's start by showing type correctness. *)

LEMMA Typing == Spec => []TypeOk

<1>1. Init => TypeOk

BY NAssumption DEF Init, TypeOk

<1>2. TypeOk /\ [Next]_vars => TypeOk'

BY DEF TypeOk, Next, vars

<1>. QED BY <1>1, <1>2, PTL DEF Spec

(* Now let's rewrite the enabledness condition that occurs as part

of the fairness hypothesis to a simple state predicate. *)

LEMMA EnabledNext ==

ASSUME TypeOk

PROVE (ENABLED <<Next>>_vars) <=> i > 0

\* any Next step changes vars: here type correctness is relevant

<1>1. <<Next>>_vars <=> Next

BY DEF TypeOk, Next, vars

\* therefore the ENABLED conditions are equivalent

<1>2. (ENABLED <<Next>>_vars) <=> ENABLED Next

BY <1>1, ENABLEDrules

\* The method ExpandENABLED replaces ENABLED by explicit quantification.

<1>. QED

BY <1>2, ExpandENABLED DEF Next, vars

(* We can now prove termination by induction. *)

THEOREM Terminate == Spec => <>Termination

<1>. DEFINE BSpec == []TypeOk /\ [][Next]_vars /\ WF_vars(Next)

P(n) == [](i=n => <>Termination)

<1>1. SUFFICES BSpec => <>Termination

BY Typing, PTL DEF Spec

<1>2. BSpec => \A n \in Nat : P(n)

<2>1. BSpec => P(0)

<3>1. i=0 => Termination BY DEF Termination

<3>. QED BY <3>1, PTL

<2>2. ASSUME NEW n \in Nat

PROVE (BSpec => P(n)) => (BSpec => P(n+1))

<3>1. i=n+1 /\ [Next]_vars => (i=n+1)' \/ (i=n)'

BY DEF Next, vars

<3>2. i=n+1 /\ <<Next>>_vars => (i=n)'

BY DEF Next, vars

<3>3. TypeOk /\ i=n+1 => ENABLED <<Next>>_vars

BY EnabledNext

<3>4. BSpec => [](i=n+1 => <>(i=n))

BY <3>1, <3>2, <3>3, PTL DEF BSpec

<3>. QED BY <3>4, PTL

<2>. HIDE DEF BSpec, P

<2>. QED BY <2>1, <2>2, NatInduction

<1>3. BSpec => \A n \in Nat : i=n => <>Termination

<2>. SUFFICES ASSUME NEW n \in Nat PROVE BSpec => (i=n => <>Termination)

OBVIOUS

<2>1. BSpec => P(n) BY <1>2

<2>. QED BY <2>1, PTL

<1>4. BSpec => \E n \in Nat : i=n

<2>1. TypeOk => \E n \in Nat : i=n BY DEF TypeOk

<2>. QED BY <2>1, PTL DEF BSpec

<1>. QED BY <1>3, <1>4

=============================================================================On 4 Aug 2022, at 15:25, Andreas Recke <Andrea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:Hi,I am still a beginner with TLAPS andI am trying to prove an algorithm whichworks in TLC, but appears to be a bit more complicated to work on. So I decidedon a toy problem and found it very hard to prove.It is a simple algorithm that counts i from N to 0 and ends.I want to prove that it ends, i.e. WillTerminate == <>(i=0)The logic of the proof is inductive and by contradiction:1) show that Next is enabled for every i > 02) assume that a j \in Int exists for which WillTerminate is false3) show that if 2 is true, then it will be true for j-14) show that if 2 and 3 are true, then it will be true for j=0 which is a contradiction.TLC toolbox dislikes when I something like~WillTerminate /\ Next => (~WillTerminate)', because it contains action and temporal arguments.So I am stuck.Maybe TLAPS cannot work with the <> construct.An alternative is to set a "promise" that the algorithm ends to true and use this assurrogate which never changes. But this appears to be incorrect.I did not find anything how to work with this "will eventually be" temporal logic.I would appreciate if someone has an idea or comment on this.Kind regardsAndreasP.S.: here is the spec---------------------------- MODULE FinallyZero ----------------------------

EXTENDS Integers, Naturals, TLC, TLAPS

CONSTANTS N

ASSUME N > 0

VARIABLES i, expected_i

vars == <<i>>

Init == i = N /\ i \in Int /\ expected_i = 0

Next == i > 0 /\ i' = i-1 /\ UNCHANGED(expected_i)

Spec == Init /\ [][Next]_vars /\ WF_vars(Next)

\* Type Invariant

TypeOk == i \in Int /\ i >= 0

\* Termination

Termination == i=0

\* Will terminate invariant

WillTerminate == <>(i=0)

\* Complete Invariant

Inv == TypeOk /\ WillTerminate

THEOREM NextFinishes == ASSUME ~WillTerminate /\ Next => ~WillTerminate' PROVE FALSE

BY PTL DEF WillTerminate, Next

=============================================================================

\* Modification History

\* Last modified Thu Aug 04 14:39:02 CEST 2022 by andreas

\* Created Sun Jul 31 21:38:42 CEST 2022 by andreas--

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/eb93e2f8-57ae-4da1-aa52-3d878107773dn%40googlegroups.com.--

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/af66b648-9ef7-4085-84db-b8bf0757ba92n%40googlegroups.com.

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/e22bc22e-4042-4d1b-9052-12d890b0cf63n%40googlegroups.com.

**References**:**[tlaplus] Proving termination using the "will eventually be true" logic***From:*Andreas Recke

**Re: [tlaplus] Proving termination using the "will eventually be true" logic***From:*Stephan Merz

**Re: [tlaplus] Proving termination using the "will eventually be true" logic***From:*Andreas Recke

**Re: [tlaplus] Proving termination using the "will eventually be true" logic***From:*Stephan Merz

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [tlaplus] Proving termination using the "will eventually be true" logic** - Next by Date:
**[tlaplus] Evaluating an expression of the form t \o s when s is not a string: <<>>** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [tlaplus] Proving termination using the "will eventually be true" logic** - Next by thread:
**[tlaplus] Evaluating an expression of the form t \o s when s is not a string: <<>>** - Index(es):