Thank you Andrew and Stephan. I was thinking the same way but I don't trust my intuition as I don't know how to formally prove it.For the second formula.[](<>[]ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v)[]<>[]ENABLED <<A>>_v => []<><<A>>_v<>[]ENABLED<<A>>_v => []<><<A>>_v~<>[]ENABLED<<A>>_v \/ []<><<A>>_v[]~[]ENABLED<<A>>_v \/ []<><<A>>_v[](~[]ENABLED<<A>>_v \/ <><<A>>_v)[]([]ENABLED<<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v) which is WF_v(A)So it means the second formula is just a tautology of WF_v(A), or equivalent.For the first formula[](ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v)[]ENABLED<<A>>_v => []<><<A>>_v~[]ENABLED<<A>>_v \/ []<><<A>>_v <--- This is where I mind got short-circuitedAs per Andrew, if this is unconditional fairness then this should be equivalent to []<><<A>>_v, for which I don't know how to derive.Thanks and best regards,Chris (Zitro)On Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-8 Andrew Helwer wrote:Thanks, Stephan! Another interesting question that occurs to me is whether the first formula is equivalent to unconditional fairness, since presumably a step must be enabled before it can be taken. Thus the ENABLED A precondition seems redundant.AndrewOn Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:34 PM Stephan Merz <stepha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:As Andrew suspects, the second formula is equivalent to weak fairness:THEOREMASSUME NEW ACTION A, NEW STATE vPROVE WF_v(A) <=> [](<>[]ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v)BY PTLStephanOn 13 Nov 2025, at 01:51, Andrew Helwer <andrew...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:[](ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v) is equivalent to []((ENABLED A) ~> <><<A>>_v) which means if an A step is enabled (like at all), eventually it will be taken; moreover, it will also be taken after every time an A step is enabled in the future. This is like an even stronger fairness assumption, but looking through the texts I have it does not seem to be a standard one. The usual next strongest fairness assumption in temporal logic is unconditional fairness, which is just []<><<A>>_v. There are a lot of fairness definitions out there though so I'm sure someone has covered & named it.For the second one, since P => <>P, it seems to be implied by weak fairness. So it is at most as strong as weak fairness. Is it any weaker than weak fairness? I can't think of how it could be, but then we should be able to rewrite it into weak fairness. And there I am somewhat at a loss.AndrewOn Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 4:09 PM Chris Ortiz <zitro...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hello,WF_v(A) == []([]ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v) andSF_v(A) == []([]<>ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v)Is there[]( ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v) and[](<>[]ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v ?And what could they mean?Thanks and best regards,Chris (Zitro)--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/98c4554e-2498-448c-86fd-ada5308a4c11n%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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/CABj%3DxUVG%2B-mRqwsUuRxDNGae_7PScdDf145WQ0T91yWFzSuQVA%40mail.gmail.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/47D2E34E-4119-41D3-8989-B4A296A3D5E1%40gmail.com.