Axiomatic Verification II
|
|
- Earl McBride
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Axiomatic Verification II Software Testing and Verification Lecture Notes 18 Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida
2 Axiomatic Verification II Reasoning about iteration (while loops) Strong correctness and proving termination
3 Review of Proof Rules Before proceeding to while loops, let s capture our previous reasoning about sequencing, selection statements, and state condition replacement in appropriate rules of inference (ROI). ROI for Sequencing: {P} S 1 {R}, {R} S 2 {Q} {P} S 1 ; S 2 {Q}
4 Review of Proof Rules (cont d) ROI for if_then_else statement: {P Л b } S 1 {Q}, {P Л b} S 2 {Q} {P} if b then S 1 else S 2 {Q} ROI for if_then statement: {P Л b } S {Q}, (P Л b) Q {P} if b then S {Q}
5 Review of Proof Rules (cont d) ROI for State Condition Replacement : K P, {P} S {Q}, Q W {K} S {W} Also known as the CONSEQUENCE rule.
6 Reasoning about Iteration Consider the assertion: {P} while b do S {Q} {P} b F T S {Q} What are the necessary conditions for this assertion to hold?
7 Necessary Conditions: while_do So, we know that {P} while b do S {Q} will hold if the following conditions hold: Case 0: (P Л b) Q Case 1: {P Л b} S {K 1 }, (K 1 Л b) Q Case 2: {K 1 Л b} S {K 2 }, (K 2 Л b) Q Case N: {K N-1 Л b} S {K N }, (K N Л b) Q Great! But who has the time to show that an infinite number of conditions hold?
8 Reasoning about Iteration (cont d) To eliminate the infinite sequence of conditions, replace each K i with I (where I K i for every i). Then the conditions above become: Case 0: (P Л b) Q Case 1: {P Л b} S {I}, (I Л b) Q All other Cases: {I Л b} S {I} To simplify, require further that P I. Then the four conditions reduce to three: P I, {I Л b} S {I}, (I Л b) Q
9 Reasoning about Iteration (cont d) Thus, a ROI for the while_do statement is: P I, {I Л b} S {I}, (I Л b) Q {P} while b do S {Q} where the three antecedents are sometimes given the names initialization, preservation, and finalization, respectively. The assertion I in this context is informally referred to as an Invariant, or more precisely as a Q-adequate loop invariant.
10 Invariants and Q-adequate invariants A loop invariant is a Boolean-valued predicate that satisfies initialization and preservation. A Q-adequate loop invariant is a loop invariant that also satisfies finalization. Note that there may be an arbitrary number of valid loop invariants. For example, TRUE is a trivial loop invariant for any while loop. The stronger the invariant, the more one can conclude from it together with b.
11 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I Preservation: {I Л b} S {I} Finalization: (I Л b) Q
12 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: P {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I What is P? (Z=X Л J=1)
13 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Initialization: P I P Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while What is P? (Z=X Л J=1) Does (Z=X Л J=1) Z=XJ? X=X(1) {Z=XY}
14 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: P {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I What is P? (Z=X Л J=1) Does (Z=X Л J=1) Z=XJ? Yep!
15 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I
16 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Z := X b J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X S end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I Preservation: {I Л b} S {I} {Z=XJ Л J Y} Z := Z+X {Z=X(J+1) Л J Y} {Z=X((J-1)+1) Л J-1 Y} Z=XJ
17 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I Preservation: {I Л b} S {I}
18 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I Preservation: {I Л b} S {I} Finalization: (I Л b) Q
19 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I Preservation: {I Л b} S {I} Finalization: (I Л b) Q Does (Z=XJ Л J=Y) Z=XY? XJ=X(J) Yep!
20 Example 3 Use the Q-adequate invariant I: Z=XJ to prove: {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY} Initialization: P I Preservation: {I Л b} S {I} Finalization: (I Л b) Q
21 Heuristics for Identifying I 1. Hypothesize a predicate that reflects the incremental progress made toward satisfying Q with each iteration. 2. Check finalization. If necessary, refine the predicate so as to be just strong enough to imply Q on termination (i.e., when b becomes false). 3. Check initialization. If necessary, refine the predicate so as to be just weak enough to be implied by P and return to step (2). 4. Check preservation. If necessary, refine the predicate so as to ensure preservation with respect to S and return to step (2).
22 Hypothesize I Finalization? true false strengthen Initialization? true false weaken Preservation? true false Initialization? refine false finish true false Preservation? true
23 Example 4 Synthesize a Q-adequate invariant and prove: {N 1} Sum := 0 J := 1 while J<=N do Sum := Sum + X[J] end_while {Sum = N X[i]} Hypothesized I: Sum = J-1 X[i] Does finalization hold? I.e., does (Sum = Sum = J-1 N X[i] Л J>N) X[i]? Nope!
24 Example 4 Synthesize a Q-adequate invariant and prove: {N 1} Sum := 0 J := 1 while J<=N do Sum := Sum + X[J] end_while {Sum = N X[i]} Hypothesized I: (try #2) Sum = J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Does finalization hold? I.e., does (Sum = J>N) Yep! J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Л Sum = N X[i]?
25 Example 4 Synthesize a Q-adequate invariant and prove: {N 1} Sum := 0 J := 1 while J<=N do Sum := Sum + X[J] end_while {Sum = N X[i]} Hypothesized I: (try #2) Sum = J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Finalization
26 Example 4 Synthesize a Q-adequate invariant and prove: {N 1} Sum := 0 J := 1 while J<=N do Sum := Sum + X[J] end_while {Sum = N X[i]} Hypothesized I: (try #2) Sum = J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Does initialization hold? I.e., does (N 1 Л Sum=0 Л J=1) (Sum = Yep! J-1 X[i] Л J N+1)?
27 Example 4 Synthesize a Q-adequate invariant and prove: {N 1} Sum := 0 J := 1 while J<=N do Sum := Sum + X[J] end_while {Sum = N X[i]} Hypothesized I: (try #2) Sum = J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Finalization Initialization
28 Example 4 Synthesize a Q-adequate invariant and prove: {N 1} Sum := 0 J := 1 while J<=N do Sum := Sum + X[J] end_while {Sum = N X[i]} Hypothesized I: (try #2) Sum = J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Does preservation hold? J-1 Sum := Sum + X[J] {Sum = {Sum = J {Sum = J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Л J N} X[i] Л J N} X[i] Л J-1 N} = {I}
29 Example 4 Synthesize a Q-adequate invariant and prove: {N 1} Sum := 0 J := 1 while J<=N do Sum := Sum + X[J] end_while {Sum = N X[i]} Hypothesized I: (try #2) Sum = J-1 X[i] Л J N+1 Finalization Initialization Preservation
30 Strong Correctness Program S is said to be strongly correct with respect to pre-condition P and postcondition Q iff: 1. {P} S {Q} (i.e., S is weakly correct with respect to P and Q), and 2. P implies that S will terminate.
31 Strong Correctness (cont d) Is it possible to prove that a program will terminate? Are there programs for which termination is undecidable? To write a program which should terminate but doesn t is a minor sin. To write a program for which termination is undecidable is a major sin. Harlan Mills
32 Let s Pause for a Moment I remember, as a young boy, watching small, brown frogs jump from Lilly pad to Lilly pad in the pond behind our house. They seemed to never tire of this
33 Proving Termination the Method of Well-Founded Sets For each program loop, identify a measure based on one or more program variables that satisfies the following properties: 1. decreases (or increases) with each iteration 2. is bounded from below (or above), and 3. can assume only a finite number of values before reaching the bound A well-founded set (S, >) consists of a set of elements S and an ordering > defined on the elements, such that there can be no infinite descending sequences of elements.
34 Proving Termination the Method of Well-Founded Sets (cont d) Example: consider a linear search of an unordered list for the value K: {true} Found := false J := 1 while (J<=N and (not Found)) do Found := (K=X[J]) end_while {(Found Л K=X[J-1]) V ( Found Л i {1,,N} K X[i])}
35 Proving Termination the Method of Well-Founded Sets (cont d) Proof of termination: Measure: J 1. J increases with each iteration since J:=J+1 is executed with each iteration and J does not otherwise change. 2. J is bounded from above (by N+1) since if J exceeds N, J<=N will evaluate to false and the loop must terminate.
36 Proving Termination the Method of Well-Founded Sets (cont d) Proof of termination: (cont d) 3. Since J increases by an integral amount with each iteration, it can assume only a finite number of values before reaching N+1: {1, 2,, N, N+1}. Therefore, by the Method of Well-Founded Sets, the loop must terminate.
37 Exercise The weak correctness of the assertion below was established earlier. Can the Method of Well-Founded Sets be used to prove the program will terminate? {true} Z := X J := 1 while J<>Y do Z := Z+X end_while {Z=XY}
38 A while_do ROI for strong correctness We can incorporate a termination term, t, in the while loop ROI. Let t denote a whole number which decreases with each iteration and implies termination when less than or equal to 0: P I, (IЛb) (t >0), {IЛbЛt=N} S {IЛt<N}, (IЛ b) Q {P} while b do S {Q} strongly Any well-founded ordering may be used for the domain of t.
39 Problem Set 5: Axiomatic Verification Note especially... Problem 4: deriving and using a suitable Rule of Inference for the repeat_until construct, and Problem 6: alternative, hypothesized Rules of Inference for the while construct...are they valid or not?
40 Axiomatic Verification II Software Testing and Verification Lecture Notes 18 Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida
Proofs of Correctness: Introduction to Axiomatic Verification
Proofs of Correctness: Introduction to Axiomatic Verification Introduction Weak correctness predicate Assignment statements Sequencing Selection statements Iteration 1 Introduction What is Axiomatic Verification?
More informationProgram verification. Hoare triples. Assertional semantics (cont) Example: Semantics of assignment. Assertional semantics of a program
Program verification Assertional semantics of a program Meaning of a program: relation between its inputs and outputs; specified by input assertions (pre-conditions) and output assertions (post-conditions)
More informationProgramming Languages and Compilers (CS 421)
Programming Languages and Compilers (CS 421) Sasa Misailovic 4110 SC, UIUC https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs421/fa2017/cs421a Based in part on slides by Mattox Beckman, as updated by Vikram Adve, Gul
More informationPredicate Transforms I
Predicate Transforms I Software Testing and Verification Lecture Notes 19 Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida Predicate Transforms I 1. Introduction: weakest pre-conditions (wp
More informationAxiomatic Semantics. Lecture 9 CS 565 2/12/08
Axiomatic Semantics Lecture 9 CS 565 2/12/08 Axiomatic Semantics Operational semantics describes the meaning of programs in terms of the execution steps taken by an abstract machine Denotational semantics
More informationDynamic Semantics. Dynamic Semantics. Operational Semantics Axiomatic Semantics Denotational Semantic. Operational Semantics
Dynamic Semantics Operational Semantics Denotational Semantic Dynamic Semantics Operational Semantics Operational Semantics Describe meaning by executing program on machine Machine can be actual or simulated
More informationIn this episode of The Verification Corner, Rustan Leino talks about Loop Invariants. He gives a brief summary of the theoretical foundations and
In this episode of The Verification Corner, Rustan Leino talks about Loop Invariants. He gives a brief summary of the theoretical foundations and shows how a program can sometimes be systematically constructed
More informationProgram verification using Hoare Logic¹
Program verification using Hoare Logic¹ Automated Reasoning - Guest Lecture Petros Papapanagiotou Part 2 of 2 ¹Contains material from Mike Gordon s slides: Previously on Hoare Logic A simple while language
More informationHoare Logic I. Introduction to Deductive Program Verification. Simple Imperative Programming Language. Hoare Logic. Meaning of Hoare Triples
Hoare Logic I Introduction to Deductive Program Verification Işıl Dillig Program Spec Deductive verifier FOL formula Theorem prover valid contingent Example specs: safety (no crashes), absence of arithmetic
More informationHoare Logic and Model Checking
Hoare Logic and Model Checking Kasper Svendsen University of Cambridge CST Part II 2016/17 Acknowledgement: slides heavily based on previous versions by Mike Gordon and Alan Mycroft Introduction In the
More informationHoare Logic: Part II
Hoare Logic: Part II COMP2600 Formal Methods for Software Engineering Jinbo Huang Australian National University COMP 2600 Hoare Logic II 1 Factorial {n 0} fact := 1; i := n; while (i >0) do fact := fact
More informationWhat happens to the value of the expression x + y every time we execute this loop? while x>0 do ( y := y+z ; x := x:= x z )
Starter Questions Feel free to discuss these with your neighbour: Consider two states s 1 and s 2 such that s 1, x := x + 1 s 2 If predicate P (x = y + 1) is true for s 2 then what does that tell us about
More informationFoundations of Computation
The Australian National University Semester 2, 2018 Research School of Computer Science Tutorial 6 Dirk Pattinson Foundations of Computation The tutorial contains a number of exercises designed for the
More informationThe Assignment Axiom (Hoare)
The Assignment Axiom (Hoare) Syntax: V := E Semantics: value of V in final state is value of E in initial state Example: X:=X+ (adds one to the value of the variable X) The Assignment Axiom {Q[E/V ]} V
More informationSpring 2015 Program Analysis and Verification. Lecture 4: Axiomatic Semantics I. Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University
Spring 2015 Program Analysis and Verification Lecture 4: Axiomatic Semantics I Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University Agenda Basic concepts of correctness Axiomatic semantics (pages 175-183) Hoare Logic
More informationLecture Notes: Axiomatic Semantics and Hoare-style Verification
Lecture Notes: Axiomatic Semantics and Hoare-style Verification 17-355/17-665/17-819O: Program Analysis (Spring 2018) Claire Le Goues and Jonathan Aldrich clegoues@cs.cmu.edu, aldrich@cs.cmu.edu It has
More informationPropositional Logic: Syntax
Logic Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about time (and programs) epistemic
More informationAxiomatic Semantics. Hoare s Correctness Triplets Dijkstra s Predicate Transformers
Axiomatic Semantics Hoare s Correctness Triplets Dijkstra s Predicate Transformers Goal of a program = IO Relation Problem Specification Properties satisfied by the input and expected of the output (usually
More informationCS558 Programming Languages
CS558 Programming Languages Winter 2017 Lecture 2b Andrew Tolmach Portland State University 1994-2017 Semantics Informal vs. Formal Informal semantics Descriptions in English (or other natural language)
More informationAxiomatic Semantics. Operational semantics. Good for. Not good for automatic reasoning about programs
Review Operational semantics relatively l simple many flavors (small vs. big) not compositional (rule for while) Good for describing language implementation reasoning about properties of the language eg.
More informationHoare Logic (I): Axiomatic Semantics and Program Correctness
Hoare Logic (I): Axiomatic Semantics and Program Correctness (Based on [Apt and Olderog 1991; Gries 1981; Hoare 1969; Kleymann 1999; Sethi 199]) Yih-Kuen Tsay Dept. of Information Management National Taiwan
More informationLogic. Propositional Logic: Syntax
Logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about
More informationStatic Program Analysis
Static Program Analysis Lecture 16: Abstract Interpretation VI (Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement) Thomas Noll Lehrstuhl für Informatik 2 (Software Modeling and Verification) noll@cs.rwth-aachen.de
More informationAxiomatic Semantics: Verification Conditions. Review of Soundness and Completeness of Axiomatic Semantics. Announcements
Axiomatic Semantics: Verification Conditions Meeting 12, CSCI 5535, Spring 2009 Announcements Homework 4 is due tonight Wed forum: papers on automated testing using symbolic execution 2 Questions? Review
More informationFirst Order Logic vs Propositional Logic CS477 Formal Software Dev Methods
First Order Logic vs Propositional Logic CS477 Formal Software Dev Methods Elsa L Gunter 2112 SC, UIUC egunter@illinois.edu http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs477 Slides based in part on previous lectures
More informationLoop Convergence. CS 536: Science of Programming, Fall 2018
Solved Loop Convergence CS 536: Science of Programming, Fall 2018 A. Why Diverging programs aren t useful, so it s useful to know how to show that loops terminate. B. Objectives At the end of this lecture
More informationSpring 2016 Program Analysis and Verification. Lecture 3: Axiomatic Semantics I. Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University
Spring 2016 Program Analysis and Verification Lecture 3: Axiomatic Semantics I Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University Warm-up exercises 1. Define program state: 2. Define structural semantics configurations:
More informationProgram verification. 18 October 2017
Program verification 18 October 2017 Example revisited // assume(n>2); void partition(int a[], int n) { int pivot = a[0]; int lo = 1, hi = n-1; while (lo
More informationCOP4020 Programming Languages. Introduction to Axiomatic Semantics Prof. Robert van Engelen
COP4020 Programming Languages Introduction to Axiomatic Semantics Prof. Robert van Engelen Assertions and Preconditions Assertions are used by programmers to verify run-time execution An assertion is a
More informationSoundness and Completeness of Axiomatic Semantics
#1 Soundness and Completeness of Axiomatic Semantics #2 One-Slide Summary A system of axiomatic semantics is sound if everything we can prove is also true: if ` { A } c { B } then ² { A } c { B } We prove
More informationPredicate Logic - Undecidability
CS402, Spring 2016 Undecidable Problems Does the following program halts? (1) N : n, total, x, y, z (2) n GetUserInput() (3) total 3 (4) while true (5) for x 1 to total 2 (6) for y 1 to total x 1 (7) z
More informationAxiomatic Semantics: Verification Conditions. Review of Soundness of Axiomatic Semantics. Questions? Announcements
Axiomatic Semantics: Verification Conditions Meeting 18, CSCI 5535, Spring 2010 Announcements Homework 6 is due tonight Today s forum: papers on automated testing using symbolic execution Anyone looking
More informationA Short Introduction to Hoare Logic
A Short Introduction to Hoare Logic Supratik Chakraborty I.I.T. Bombay June 23, 2008 Supratik Chakraborty (I.I.T. Bombay) A Short Introduction to Hoare Logic June 23, 2008 1 / 34 Motivation Assertion checking
More informationProof Calculus for Partial Correctness
Proof Calculus for Partial Correctness Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 7, 2016 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Proof Calculus for Partial Correctness September
More informationCSC 7101: Programming Language Structures 1. Axiomatic Semantics. Stansifer Ch 2.4, Ch. 9 Winskel Ch.6 Slonneger and Kurtz Ch. 11.
Axiomatic Semantics Stansifer Ch 2.4, Ch. 9 Winskel Ch.6 Slonneger and Kurtz Ch. 11 1 Overview We ll develop proof rules, such as: { I b } S { I } { I } while b do S end { I b } That allow us to verify
More informationReasoning About Imperative Programs. COS 441 Slides 10b
Reasoning About Imperative Programs COS 441 Slides 10b Last time Hoare Logic: { P } C { Q } Agenda If P is true in the initial state s. And C in state s evaluates to s. Then Q must be true in s. Program
More informationLast Time. Inference Rules
Last Time When program S executes it switches to a different state We need to express assertions on the states of the program S before and after its execution We can do it using a Hoare triple written
More informationHoare Calculus and Predicate Transformers
Hoare Calculus and Predicate Transformers Wolfgang Schreiner Wolfgang.Schreiner@risc.uni-linz.ac.at Research Institute for Symbolic Computation (RISC) Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at
More informationBilateral Proofs of Safety and Progress Properties of Concurrent Programs (Working Draft)
Bilateral Proofs of Safety and Progress Properties of Concurrent Programs (Working Draft) Jayadev Misra December 18, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Program and Execution Model 4 2.1 Program Structure..........................
More informationSolutions to exercises for the Hoare logic (based on material written by Mark Staples)
Solutions to exercises for the Hoare logic (based on material written by Mark Staples) Exercise 1 We are interested in termination, so that means we need to use the terminology of total correctness, i.e.
More informationBlack-Box Testing Techniques III
Black-Box Testing Techniques III Software Testing and Verification Lecture 6 Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida Another Cause-Effect Example: Symbol Table Storage Specification
More informationAxiomatic Semantics. Stansifer Ch 2.4, Ch. 9 Winskel Ch.6 Slonneger and Kurtz Ch. 11 CSE
Axiomatic Semantics Stansifer Ch 2.4, Ch. 9 Winskel Ch.6 Slonneger and Kurtz Ch. 11 CSE 6341 1 Outline Introduction What are axiomatic semantics? First-order logic & assertions about states Results (triples)
More informationProving Programs Correct
Proving Programs Correct Page 1 of 9 Proving Programs Correct How can we be sure that a piece of code does what we want it to do? One way is to try testing the code on a large group of data. Another is
More informationor simply: IC3 A Simplified Description
Incremental Construction of Inductive Clauses for Indubitable Correctness or simply: IC3 A Simplified Description Based on SAT-Based Model Checking without Unrolling Aaron Bradley, VMCAI 2011 Efficient
More informationSection 2.2 Set Operations. Propositional calculus and set theory are both instances of an algebraic system called a. Boolean Algebra.
Section 2.2 Set Operations Propositional calculus and set theory are both instances of an algebraic system called a Boolean Algebra. The operators in set theory are defined in terms of the corresponding
More informationFloyd-Hoare Style Program Verification
Floyd-Hoare Style Program Verification Deepak D Souza Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. 9 Feb 2017 Outline of this talk 1 Overview 2 Hoare Triples 3
More informationWeakest Precondition Calculus
Weakest Precondition Calculus COMP2600 Formal Methods for Software Engineering Rajeev Goré Australian National University Semester 2, 2016 (Most lecture slides due to Ranald Clouston) COMP 2600 Weakest
More informationLogic. Propositional Logic: Syntax. Wffs
Logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about
More informationSoftwaretechnik. Lecture 13: Design by Contract. Peter Thiemann University of Freiburg, Germany
Softwaretechnik Lecture 13: Design by Contract Peter Thiemann University of Freiburg, Germany 25.06.2012 Table of Contents Design by Contract Contracts for Procedural Programs Contracts for Object-Oriented
More informationMid-Semester Quiz Second Semester, 2012
THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Mid-Semester Quiz Second Semester, 2012 COMP2600 (Formal Methods for Software Engineering) Writing Period: 1 hour duration Study Period: 10 minutes duration Permitted
More informationHoare Logic: Reasoning About Imperative Programs
Hoare Logic: Reasoning About Imperative Programs COMP1600 / COMP6260 Dirk Pattinson Australian National University Semester 2, 2017 Catch Up / Drop in Lab When Fridays, 15.00-17.00 Where N335, CSIT Building
More informationAxiomatic Semantics. Semantics of Programming Languages course. Joosep Rõõmusaare
Axiomatic Semantics Semantics of Programming Languages course Joosep Rõõmusaare 2014 Direct Proofs of Program Correctness Partial correctness properties are properties expressing that if a given program
More informationDesign of Distributed Systems Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth
Design of Distributed Systems Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth Design of Distributed Systems Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth Publication date 2014 Copyright 2014 Melinda Tóth, Zoltán Horváth Supported by TÁMOP-412A/1-11/1-2011-0052
More informationProof Rules for Correctness Triples
Proof Rules for Correctness Triples CS 536: Science of Programming, Fall 2018 A. Why? We can t generally prove that correctness triples are valid using truth tables. We need proof axioms for atomic statements
More informationCS 6110 Lecture 21 The Fixed-Point Theorem 8 March 2013 Lecturer: Andrew Myers. 1 Complete partial orders (CPOs) 2 Least fixed points of functions
CS 6110 Lecture 21 The Fixed-Point Theorem 8 March 2013 Lecturer: Andrew Myers We saw that the semantics of the while command are a fixed point. We also saw that intuitively, the semantics are the limit
More informationDeductive Verification
Deductive Verification Mooly Sagiv Slides from Zvonimir Rakamaric First-Order Logic A formal notation for mathematics, with expressions involving Propositional symbols Predicates Functions and constant
More informationSoftwaretechnik. Lecture 13: Design by Contract. Peter Thiemann University of Freiburg, Germany
Softwaretechnik Lecture 13: Design by Contract Peter Thiemann University of Freiburg, Germany 25.06.2012 Table of Contents Design by Contract Contracts for Procedural Programs Contracts for Object-Oriented
More informationSpring 2014 Program Analysis and Verification. Lecture 6: Axiomatic Semantics III. Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University
Spring 2014 Program Analysis and Verification Lecture 6: Axiomatic Semantics III Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University Syllabus Semantics Static Analysis Abstract Interpretation fundamentals Analysis Techniques
More informationProving Inter-Program Properties
Unité Mixte de Recherche 5104 CNRS - INPG - UJF Centre Equation 2, avenue de VIGNATE F-38610 GIERES tel : +33 456 52 03 40 fax : +33 456 52 03 50 http://www-verimag.imag.fr Proving Inter-Program Properties
More informationSpring 2015 Program Analysis and Verification. Lecture 6: Axiomatic Semantics III. Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University
Spring 2015 Program Analysis and Verification Lecture 6: Axiomatic Semantics III Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University Tentative syllabus Semantics Static Analysis Abstract Interpretation fundamentals Analysis
More informationCS256/Winter 2009 Lecture #6. Zohar Manna
CS256/Winter 2009 Lecture #6 Zohar Manna Chapter 1 Invariance: Proof Methods For assertion q and SPL program P show P Õ ¼ q (i.e., q is P-invariant) 6-1 Proving Invariances Definitions Recall: the variables
More informationG54FOP: Lecture 17 & 18 Denotational Semantics and Domain Theory III & IV
G54FOP: Lecture 17 & 18 Denotational Semantics and Domain Theory III & IV Henrik Nilsson University of Nottingham, UK G54FOP: Lecture 17 & 18 p.1/33 These Two Lectures Revisit attempt to define denotational
More informationHoare Logic: Reasoning About Imperative Programs
Hoare Logic: Reasoning About Imperative Programs COMP1600 / COMP6260 Dirk Pattinson Australian National University Semester 2, 2018 Programming Paradigms Functional. (Haskell, SML, OCaml,... ) main paradigm:
More informationDeterministic Program The While Program
Deterministic Program The While Program Shangping Ren Department of Computer Science Illinois Institute of Technology February 24, 2014 Shangping Ren Deterministic Program The While Program February 24,
More informationSoftware Testing Lecture 5. Justin Pearson
Software Testing Lecture 5 Justin Pearson 2017 1 / 34 Covering Logical Expressions Logic expression show up in many situations Covering logical expressions have a long history, many are the covering criteria
More informationSpace and Nondeterminism
CS 221 Computational Complexity, Lecture 5 Feb 6, 2018 Space and Nondeterminism Instructor: Madhu Sudan 1 Scribe: Yong Wook Kwon Topic Overview Today we ll talk about space and non-determinism. For some
More informationIntroduction to Axiomatic Semantics
#1 Introduction to Axiomatic Semantics #2 How s The Homework Going? Remember that you can t just define a meaning function in terms of itself you must use some fixed point machinery. #3 Observations A
More information5. Program Correctness: Mechanics
5. Program Correctness: Mechanics Program A: LinearSearch with function specification @pre 0 l u < a @post rv i. l i u a[i] = e bool LinearSearch(int[] a, int l, int u, int e) { for @ (int i := l; i u;
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.pl] 5 Apr 2017
arxiv:1704.01814v1 [cs.pl] 5 Apr 2017 Bilateral Proofs of Safety and Progress Properties of Concurrent Programs Jayadev Misra University of Texas at Austin, misra@utexas.edu April 5, 2017 Abstract This
More informationDeterministic Finite Automata
Deterministic Finite Automata COMP2600 Formal Methods for Software Engineering Katya Lebedeva Australian National University Semester 2, 2016 Slides by Ranald Clouston and Katya Lebedeva. COMP 2600 Deterministic
More informationCS156: The Calculus of Computation
Page 1 of 61 CS156: The Calculus of Computation Zohar Manna Winter 2010 Chapter 5: Program Correctness: Mechanics Page 2 of 61 Program A: LinearSearch with function specification @pre 0 l u < a @post rv
More informationVerifying Properties of Parallel Programs: An Axiomatic Approach
Verifying Properties of Parallel Programs: An Axiomatic Approach By Susan Owicki and David Gries (1976) Nathan Wetzler nwetzler@cs.utexas.edu University of Texas, Austin November 3, 2009 Outline Introduction
More informationControl Predicates Are Better Than Dummy Variables For Reasoning About Program Control
Control Predicates Are Better Than Dummy Variables For Reasoning About Program Control LESLIE LAMPORT Digital Equipment Corporation When explicit control predicates rather than dummy variables are used,
More informationLecture 2: Axiomatic semantics
Chair of Software Engineering Trusted Components Prof. Dr. Bertrand Meyer Lecture 2: Axiomatic semantics Reading assignment for next week Ariane paper and response (see course page) Axiomatic semantics
More informationCSE20: Discrete Mathematics
Spring 2018 Summary Today: Induction, Program Correctness Reading: Chap. 5 Division Theorem Theorem: For every integer a and positive integer d 1, there exist integers q, r such that a = qd + r and 0 r
More informationLecture Notes on Software Model Checking
15-414: Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification Lecture Notes on Software Model Checking Matt Fredrikson André Platzer Carnegie Mellon University Lecture 19 1 Introduction So far we ve focused on
More informationDecision Procedures. Jochen Hoenicke. Software Engineering Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg. Winter Term 2016/17
Decision Procedures Jochen Hoenicke Software Engineering Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg Winter Term 2016/17 Jochen Hoenicke (Software Engineering) Decision Procedures Winter Term 2016/17 1 / 436 Program
More informationProgram Analysis and Verification
Program Analysis and Verification 0368-4479 Noam Rinetzky Lecture 4: Axiomatic Semantics Slides credit: Tom Ball, Dawson Engler, Roman Manevich, Erik Poll, Mooly Sagiv, Jean Souyris, Eran Tromer, Avishai
More informationTHE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Second Semester COMP2600 (Formal Methods for Software Engineering)
THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Second Semester 2012 COMP2600 (Formal Methods for Software Engineering) Writing Period: 3 hours duration Study Period: 15 minutes duration Permitted Materials: One A4
More informationAdam Blank Spring 2017 CSE 311. Foundations of Computing I
Adam Blank Spring 2017 CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Pre-Lecture Problem Suppose that p, and p (q r) are true. Is q true? Can you prove it with equivalences? CSE 311: Foundations of Computing Lecture
More informationA. Incorrect! Replacing is not a method for solving systems of equations.
ACT Math and Science - Problem Drill 20: Systems of Equations No. 1 of 10 1. What methods were presented to solve systems of equations? (A) Graphing, replacing, and substitution. (B) Solving, replacing,
More informationLecture 17: Floyd-Hoare Logic for Partial Correctness
Lecture 17: Floyd-Hoare Logic for Partial Correctness Aims: To look at the following inference rules Page 1 of 9 sequence; assignment and consequence. 17.1. The Deduction System for Partial Correctness
More informationcse 311: foundations of computing Fall 2015 Lecture 6: Predicate Logic, Logical Inference
cse 311: foundations of computing Fall 2015 Lecture 6: Predicate Logic, Logical Inference quantifiers x P(x) P(x) is true for every x in the domain read as for all x, P of x x P x There is an x in the
More informationSoftware Engineering
Software Engineering Lecture 07: Design by Contract Peter Thiemann University of Freiburg, Germany 02.06.2014 Table of Contents Design by Contract Contracts for Procedural Programs Contracts for Object-Oriented
More informationλ Slide 1 Content Exercises from last time λ-calculus COMP 4161 NICTA Advanced Course Advanced Topics in Software Verification
Content COMP 4161 NICTA Advanced Course Advanced Topics in Software Verification Toby Murray, June Andronick, Gerwin Klein λ Slide 1 Intro & motivation, getting started [1] Foundations & Principles Lambda
More informationLogical Abduction and its Applications in Program Verification. Isil Dillig MSR Cambridge
Logical Abduction and its Applications in Program Verification? Isil Dillig MSR Cambridge What is Abduction? Abduction: Opposite of deduction 2 / 21 What is Abduction? Abduction: Opposite of deduction
More informationStatic Program Analysis using Abstract Interpretation
Static Program Analysis using Abstract Interpretation Introduction Static Program Analysis Static program analysis consists of automatically discovering properties of a program that hold for all possible
More informationWarm-Up Problem. Please fill out your Teaching Evaluation Survey! Please comment on the warm-up problems if you haven t filled in your survey yet.
Warm-Up Problem Please fill out your Teaching Evaluation Survey! Please comment on the warm-up problems if you haven t filled in your survey yet Warm up: Given a program that accepts input, is there an
More informationProgramming Languages
CSE 230: Winter 2008 Principles of Programming Languages Lecture 6: Axiomatic Semantics Deriv. Rules for Hoare Logic `{A} c {B} Rules for each language construct ` {A} c 1 {B} ` {B} c 2 {C} ` {A} skip
More informationEDA045F: Program Analysis LECTURE 10: TYPES 1. Christoph Reichenbach
EDA045F: Program Analysis LECTURE 10: TYPES 1 Christoph Reichenbach In the last lecture... Performance Counters Challenges in Dynamic Performance Analysis Taint Analysis Binary Instrumentation 2 / 44 Types
More informationPropositional Logic. Fall () Propositional Logic Fall / 30
Propositional Logic Fall 2013 () Propositional Logic Fall 2013 1 / 30 1 Introduction Learning Outcomes for this Presentation 2 Definitions Statements Logical connectives Interpretations, contexts,... Logically
More informationTopics in Model-Based Reasoning
Towards Integration of Proving and Solving Dipartimento di Informatica Università degli Studi di Verona Verona, Italy March, 2014 Automated reasoning Artificial Intelligence Automated Reasoning Computational
More informationC241 Homework Assignment 7
C24 Homework Assignment 7. Prove that for all whole numbers n, n i 2 = n(n + (2n + The proof is by induction on k with hypothesis H(k i 2 = k(k + (2k + base case: To prove H(, i 2 = = = 2 3 = ( + (2 +
More informationKnuth-Morris-Pratt Algorithm
Knuth-Morris-Pratt Algorithm Jayadev Misra June 5, 2017 The Knuth-Morris-Pratt string matching algorithm (KMP) locates all occurrences of a pattern string in a text string in linear time (in the combined
More informationLecture Notes on Compositional Reasoning
15-414: Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification Lecture Notes on Compositional Reasoning Matt Fredrikson Ruben Martins Carnegie Mellon University Lecture 4 1 Introduction This lecture will focus on
More informationFirst-Order Theorem Proving and Vampire
First-Order Theorem Proving and Vampire Laura Kovács 1,2 and Martin Suda 2 1 TU Wien 2 Chalmers Outline Introduction First-Order Logic and TPTP Inference Systems Saturation Algorithms Redundancy Elimination
More information(a) Definition of TMs. First Problem of URMs
Sec. 4: Turing Machines First Problem of URMs (a) Definition of the Turing Machine. (b) URM computable functions are Turing computable. (c) Undecidability of the Turing Halting Problem That incrementing
More informationCSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer Science (Arkoudas and Musser) Chapter p. 1/33
CSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer Science (Arkoudas and Musser) Chapter 4.1-4.8 p. 1/33 CSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer
More informationA Theory for Composing Distributed Components, Based on Temporary Interference
A Theory for Composing Distributed Components, Based on Temporary Interference I.S.W.B. Prasetya T.E.J. Vos S.D. Swierstra B. Widjaja Abstract Compositionality provides the foundation of software modularity,
More information