Re: [tlaplus] Aside from WF and SF?

Thanks for the notes on the first formula, Stephan.

Ah, good derivation Chris! In my head I was thinking that [](P => Q) does not equal []P => []Q, because => is "disjunctive-y" (translates to ~P \/ Q) and [] only distributes over conjunction, not disjunction. But looking closely we can see:

[](P => Q)
[](~P \/ Q) [translating => into disjunctive form]
[]~(P /\ ~Q) [De Morgan's law]
~<>(P /\ ~Q) [rewriting []~ to ~<>]

Hmm, I actually get stuck here, since now we have the opposite situation where <> doesn't distribute over /\. Looking on page 64 of A Science of Concurrent Programs by Lamport he calls the tautology [](P => Q) => []P => []Q we are trying to prove "obvious". I can intuitively get why this is true but writing the derivation is not so obvious to me! Maybe I can try a different approach by reasoning over traces:

Consider all traces sigma satisfying [](P => Q); we want to prove each sigma also satisfies []P => []Q
Thus each state in each trace sigma satisfies either ~P (vacuous case) or P /\ Q
Consider the case where at least one state in sigma satisfies ~P:

In this case, the formula []P => []Q is vacuously true because []P is false

Consider the case where all states in sigma satisfy P /\ Q (i.e. no states satisfy ~P):

Thus each state satisfies P, and each state satisfies Q
Since each state satisfies P, sigma satisfies []P
Since each state satisfies Q, sigma satisfies []Q
Thus sigma satisfies []P => []Q in this case

QED: in all cases where sigma satisfies [](P => Q), it also satisfies []P => []Q

So using this method was mechanically easy. My mistake was thinking in terms of rewriting (equality), when really I had to think in terms of implication; [](P => Q) => ([]P => []Q), but the converse is not true! So I wonder how I could use this to write a simpler proof.

Andrew

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:44 AM Chris Ortiz <zitroomega@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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-circuited

As 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.

Andrew

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:34 PM Stephan Merz <stepha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As Andrew suspects, the second formula is equivalent to weak fairness:

THEOREM
ASSUME NEW ACTION A, NEW STATE v
PROVE WF_v(A) <=> [](<>[]ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v)
BY PTL

Stephan

On 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.

Andrew

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 4:09 PM Chris Ortiz <zitro...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,

WF_v(A) == []([]ENABLED <<A>>_v => <><<A>>_v) and
SF_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.

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/f72d05f1-f38b-42d6-bed4-6d70e7989ddbn%40googlegroups.com.