1 / 16

CSE 3341.03 Winter 2008 Introduction to Program Verification February 7

CSE 3341.03 Winter 2008 Introduction to Program Verification February 7. prover. applying Leibnitz's law. Ex. 5.6: verify that push(top(s), pop(s)) = s ? no stack axiom covers this case need a new inference rule: if pop(S1) = pop(S2) top(S1) = top(S2) then S1 = S2.

fedora
Télécharger la présentation

CSE 3341.03 Winter 2008 Introduction to Program Verification February 7

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CSE 3341.03 Winter 2008Introduction to Program VerificationFebruary 7 prover

  2. applying Leibnitz's law • Ex. 5.6: verify that push(top(s), pop(s)) = s ? • no stack axiom covers this case • need a new inference rule: if pop(S1) = pop(S2) top(S1) = top(S2) then S1 = S2

  3. stacks as lists alternative notation: stacks as Prolog listspush(X, nil) ->> [X]. push(X,S) ->> [X | S]. pop([X | Y]) ->> Y. top([X | Y]) ->> X. what does push(a, push(b, nil)) simplify to?

  4. list computations /: theory(stack). % including rules for lists % example: pop([X|Y]) ->> Y. |: dup([a]).dup([a]) ->>[a,a] |: over([a,b,c]).over([a,b,c]) ->> [b,a,b,c]

  5. tracing |:plus([a, b, x]). push(top([a, b, x])+top(pop([a, b, x])), pop(pop([a, b, x]))) [top([a, b, x])+top(pop([a, b, x]))|pop(pop([a, b, x]))] [top([a, b, x])+top(pop([a, b, x]))|pop([b, x])] [top([a, b, x])+top(pop([a, b, x])), x] [top([a, b, x])+top([b, x]), x] [top([a, b, x])+b, x] [a+b, x] plus([a, b, x]) ->> [b+a, x]

  6. Forth a still useful language from the 70s (the era of the mini-computer) • scripting language for the Palace graphic-based chat group: iptscrae • used in writing device drivers by several hardware vendors. • bumper sticker from the 80s: "Forth you love if honk then"

  7. translating Forth • how can we convert a Forth expression into a corresponding stack expression? • text shows how to automate translation of Forth into stack expressions for verification

  8. translating Forth expressions to stack expressions • forth(S) ->> forth1(R) :- reverse(S, R). • forth1([dup | Rest]) ->> dup(forth1(Rest)). • forth1([over | Rest]) ->> over(forth1(Rest)). • forth1(['+' | Rest]) ->> plus(forth1(Rest)). • forth1(['-' | Rest]) ->> minus(forth1(Rest)). • forth1(['*' | Rest]) ->> times(forth1(Rest)). • forth1(['/' | Rest]) ->> divide(forth1(Rest)). • forth1([X | Rest]) ->> push(X, forth1(Rest)). • forth1([]) ->> nil.

  9. simplify + wang = prover prover tool combines simplification with tautology checking, and handles identities: • example: x=3 and x=y+3 implies y=0. How does prover establish this? • substituting 3 for x: x=3 and 3=y+3 implies y=0 • rule in equality.simp: X+Y=W ->> X=Z :- ?

  10. properties of ADT functions • defined ADT functions are intended to satisfy specific properties: E. g. top(dup(s)) = top(pop(dup(s))) and top(dup(s)) = top(s) (p. 24)

  11. proving with equalities • to verify that an ADT (e. g. stack) function satisfies a set of desired conditions, • we have to prove a proposition of the form E1 and E2 . . where the Ei are equalities. • we can use simplification to prove each equality, but we need one more step to check that the conjunction is true. • to improve the scope of automatic proof, prover has the capability to process identities (paramodulation):

  12. when does paramodulation work? • example: x=0 implies x<7. substitute 0 for x in the consequent x<7 • Ch. 5, p. 21 discusses why this works • it doesn’t always, e. g. not x<7 implies x= 0 is not equivalent to not 0<7 implies x=0. • only use paramodulation when the equality occurs on the left of the sequent reduced to non-logical terms: { . . . , x= E, . . . } >> { . . . }[E / x]

  13. substitution • note notation for substitution in expressions • constant minor irritation in logic & computing: name clashes to substitute E for V and eliminate V, E must be free of V i. e., V doesn't occur in E

  14. Exercise 4.1 with prover indigo 301 % prover Version 1.6.6SWI, February 14, 2007 Loading /cs/dept/course/2007-08/W/3341/arithmetic.simp Loading /cs/dept/course/2007-08/W/3341/equality.simp Loading /cs/dept/course/2007-08/W/3341/logic.simp |:(a + b = b + a) implies a < b < a. a+b=b+a implies a<b<a * Cannot prove true implies b<a and a<b.

  15. |:assert((A <B < A ->> false)). |:(a + b = b + a) implies a < b < a. a+b=b+a implies a<b<a * Cannot prove true implies false. |:(a + b = b + a) implies a < b < a implies (a + b = b + a). a + b = b + a implies a < b < a implies a+b=b+a * Valid.

  16. Queue axioms • exercise 5.4 p. 20 drop(Y -- X) = if(empty(Y), nil, drop(Y) -- X) first(Y -- X) = if(empty(Y), X, first(Y)) • what datatypes are X and Y ? • queue.simp? empty(nil) ->> true. empty(Y--X) ->> false. • what else?

More Related