Expert mode: find a use-case for <>[]<>P (or prove it's just []<>P or something)
H
On 5/19/2024 8:47 AM, Andrew Helwer wrote:
Oh I figured out the difference myself. []<>P can of course be true or false of a specific behavior. <>P is true if P is true at least once at any point in the behavior. []<>P is only true when, if P becomes false after becoming true, it eventually becomes true again.
Andrew
--On Sunday, May 19, 2024 at 9:36:27 AM UTC-4 Andrew Helwer wrote:
Examples of constant-level expressions:- 5 + 15
- 0 .. 10- {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}- "foobar"
- op, where op was declared as op == (constant _expression_)- x, where x was declared as CONSTANT x
Examples of state-level expressions:- n + 5, where n was declared as VARIABLE n- op, where op was declared as op == (state-level _expression_)
Examples of action-level expressions:- z' = z + 5, where z was declared as VARIABLE z- op, where op was declared as op == (action-level _expression_)
Examples of temporal-level expressions:- <>[](x > 5), where x was declared as VARIABLE x- P ~> Q, where P and Q are action-level expressions or below (I believe)
There is additional related terminology outside of this:- State: an assignment of values to variables; variables are accessed with no prime, like x
- Step: A pair of successive states, where variables are addressed by being primed or not, like x' or x
- Behavior: An infinite sequence of states- Spec: A set of behaviors comprising the possible executions of the system you are modeling- Formula: a bit of an imprecise term but is usually used to refer to temporal formulas, so either specs or temporal-level expressions
Constant-level expressions are just that, they can be evaluated without reference to any state or anything by just looking at them. State-level expressions can only be evaluated within the context of a specific state. Action-level expressions can only be evaluated within the context of a specific step. Temporal-level expressions can only be evaluated within the context of a specific behavior, or spec.
Actually I'm a bit confused about the last one. It would seem to me that <>P and []<>P are two different levels of formulas, since <>P can be true or false of a specific behavior whereas []<>P seems to be a statement over multiple behaviors. Can anybody help me out here?
Anyway how this all helped.
Andrew Helwer
On Sunday, May 19, 2024 at 9:18:13 AM UTC-4 marta zhango wrote:
Systems are specified as formulas. I also see functions described using logical connectives such as
implication (=>), conjunction (∧), disjunction (V) and quantification (\A, \E).
Is TLA+ specified as formulas or functions ? Or something else ?
On Sunday, May 19, 2024 at 11:08:42 PM UTC+12 marta zhango wrote:
Actually, it is for TLA+ itself. You have mentioned: constant, state, action, temporal. Any importantothers? Would you be so kind to show a general syntax for each ?
On Sunday, May 19, 2024 at 11:01:36 PM UTC+12 Stephan Merz wrote:
I don’t know documentation you looked at.
From a user’s perspective, Leslie Lamport’s video lectures [1] and/or Hillel Wayne’s Web site and book [2] are probably the best introduction (with the latter focusing on PlusCal, but this includes TLA+ expressions).
If you are looking for more mathematical descriptions covering the language and its semantics, Specifying Systems [3], the original paper introducing TLA (but not the specification language TLA+) [4] or an old paper of mine [5] may be helpful.
Hope this helps,Stephan
On 19 May 2024, at 12:44, marta zhango <marta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I actually need some nitpicking. TLA is a scheme for precise and clear description,
whereas the documentation is not.
What are the basic constructs then ? As this is what I would like to neatly summarise.
On Sunday, May 19, 2024 at 9:38:51 PM UTC+12 Stephan Merz wrote:
In fact, there is no such thing as "statements" in TLA+, only formulas of different levels (constant, state, action, temporal). This is not nitpicking, but quite a fundamental distinction.
Stephan
On 19 May 2024, at 11:24, marta zhango <marta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Have seen that statements in TLA are of the form [A]_p, where A is an action and p is a property.
But what are things without action formalism like
Cardinality(assignments[t])
and expressions such as
/\ assignments \in [Tasks -> SUBSET CPUs]
and
IsSorted(seq) == \A i, j \in 1..Len(seq): i < j => seq[i] <= seq[j]
What are the latter ? Because they do not look like TLA statements
in the form of [A]_p.
--
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/e6ae5a2d-4fed-4a6b-83f5-e211a540737bn%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/6a37ca7d-e03e-4c5e-afc5-603b3ed5c736n%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/feb13c29-ea41-4742-9497-5b979d1f6093n%40googlegroups.com.