DOCSLIB.ORG

Intro to Axiomatic Semantics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intro to Axiomatic Semantics Bonus Lecture Introduction to ≠ • Is Optional ( required ) Axiomatic • Thursday, September 14 (= After Next Class) Axiomatic • Starts at 6:15 pm Semantics • Will last two-ish hours (you can leave early) • I will provide pizza, soda, chips (what do you like?) • I will “sit on the table” and comment on PL advances. Good for project ideas, getting the lay of thel and, etc. • Want to hear about something specific? #1 #2 How’s The Aujourd’hui, nous ferons … Homework Going? •History & Motivation • Remember that •Assertions you can’t just define a •Validity meaning function in •Derivation Rules terms of itself – •Soundness you must use some fixed point •Completeness machinery. #3 #4 Review via Class Participation Axiomatic Semantics • Tell Me About Operational Semantics • An axiomatic semantics consists of: – A language for stating assertions about programs, • Tell Me About Structural Induction – Rules for establishing the truth of assertions • Tell Me About Denotational Semantics • Some typical kinds of assertions: – This program terminates – If this program terminates, the variables x and y have • We would also like a semantics that is the same value throughout the execution of the program appropriate for arguing program correctness – The array accesses are within the array bounds Some typical languages of assertions •“Axiomatic Semantics ”, we ’ll call it. • – First-order logic – Other logics (temporal, linear, pointer-assertion) – Special-purpose specification languages (SLIC, Z, Larch) #5 #6 1 History Tony Hoare Quote •“Thus the practice of proving programs • Program verification is almost as old as would seem to lead to solution of three of programming (e.g., Checking a Large the most pressing problems in software and Routine , Turing 1949) programming, namely, reliability , • In the late ’60s, Floyd had rules for flow- documentation , and compatibility . However, charts and Hoare for structured languages program proving, certainly at present, will • Since then, there have been axiomatic be difficult even for programmers of high semantics for substantial languages, and caliber; and may be applicable only to quite many applications simple program designs. ” – ESC/Java, SLAM, PCC, SPARK Ada, … -- C.A.R Hoare, An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming ,1969 #7 #8 Edsger Dijkstra Quote Tony Hoare Quote, Mark 2 •“Program testing can be used to •“It has been found a serious problem to define these languages [ALGOL, FORTRAN, COBOL] with show the presence of bugs, but sufficient rigor to ensure compatibility among all never to show their absence !” implementations. ... one way to achieve this would be to insist that all implementations of the language shall satisfy the axioms and rules of inference which underlie proofs of properties of programs expressed in the language. In effect, this is equivalent to accepting the axioms and rules of Qu’est-ce inference as the ultimately definitive specification que c’est? of the meaning of the language .” #9 #10 Other Applications of Axiomatic Assertion Notation Semantics • The project of defining and proving everything {A} c {B} formally has not succeeded (at least not yet) with the meaning that: • Proving has not replaced testing and debugging – if A holds in state σ and if <c, σ> ⇓ σ’ • Applications of axiomatic semantics: – then B holds in σ’ – Proving the correctness of algorithms (or finding bugs) • A is the precondition – Proving the correctness of hardware descriptions (or • B is the postcondition finding bugs) • For example: –“extended static checking ” (e.g., checking array bounds) { y x } z := x; z := z +1 { y < z } – Proof-carrying code is a valid assertion – Documentation of programs and interfaces • These are called Hoare triples or Hoare assertions #11 #12 2 Assertions for IMP The Assertion Language • {A} c {B} is a partial correctness assertion . • We use first-order predicate logic on top of IMP – Does not imply termination (= it is valid if c diverges) expressions • [A] c [B] is a total correctness assertion meaning A :: = true | false | e = e | e ≥ e that 1 2 1 2 | A ∧ A | A ∨ A | A ⇒ A | ∀x.A | ∃x.A If A holds in state σ 1 2 1 2 1 2 Then there exists σ’ such that <c, σ> ⇓ σ’ and B holds in state σ’ • Note that we are somewhat sloppy in mixing logical variables and the program variables • Now let us be more formal (you know you want it!) – Formalize the language of assertions, A and B – Say when an assertion holds in a state • All IMP variables implicitly range over integers – Give rules for deriving Hoare triples • All IMP boolean expressions are also assertions #13 #14 Assertion Judgment Semantics of Assertions • We need to assign meanings to our assertions Formal definition σ • New judgment σ A to say that an assertion true always σ σ σ holds in a given state (= “A is true in σ”) e1 = e 2 iff e1 = e2 σ σ σ – This is well-defined when σ is defined on all e1 ≥ e2 iff e1 ≥ e2 σ σ σ variables occurring in A A1 ∧ A2 iff A1 and A2 σ σ σ • The judgment is defined inductively on the A1 ∨ A2 iff A1 or A2 σ σ σ structure of assertions (surprise!) A1 ⇒ A2 iff A1 implies A2 • It relies on the denotational semantics of σ ∀x.A iff ∀n∈Z. σ[x:=n] A arithmetic expressions from IMP σ ∃x.A iff ∃n∈Z. σ[x:=n] A #15 #16 Hoare Triple Semantics Deriving Assertions • Now we can define formally the meaning of a • Have a formal mechanism to decide { A } c { B } partial correctness assertion { A } c { B } – But it is not satisfactory ∀∀∀σσσ∈∈∈ΣΣΣ. ∀∀∀σσσ’∈∈∈ΣΣΣ. ( σσσ A ∧∧∧ <c, σσσ> ⇓⇓⇓σσσ ’) ⇒⇒⇒ σσσ’ B – Because {A} c {B} is defined in terms of the operational •… and a total correctness assertion [A] c [B] semantics , we practically have to run the program to verify an assertion σσσ ΣΣΣ σσσ σσσ ΣΣΣ σσσ ⇓⇓⇓σσσ σσσ ∀∀∀ ∈∈∈ . A ⇒⇒⇒∃∃∃ ’∈∈∈ . <c, > ’ ∧∧∧ ’ B – It is impossible to effectively verify the truth of a ∀x. A • or even better yet: (explain this to me!) assertion (check every integer?) ∀∀∀σσσ∈∈∈ΣΣΣ. ∀∀∀σσσ’∈∈∈ΣΣΣ. ( σσσ A ∧∧∧ <c, σσσ> ⇓⇓⇓σσσ ’) ⇒⇒⇒ σσσ’ B • Plan: define a symbolic technique for deriving valid ∧∧∧ assertions from others that are known to be valid – We start with validity of first-order formulas ∀∀∀σσσ∈∈∈ΣΣΣ. σσσ A ⇒⇒⇒∃∃∃ σσσ’∈∈∈ΣΣΣ. <c, σσσ> ⇓⇓⇓σσσ ’ #17 #18 3 Derivation Rules Derivation Rules for Hoare Triples • We write ⊢ A when A can be derived from basic Similarly we write {A} c {B} when we axioms ( ⊢ A === “we can prove A ”) • ⊢ • The derivation rules for ⊢ A are the usual ones from can derive the triple using derivation first-order logic with arithmetic: ⊢ A ⇒ B ⊢ A rules ⊢ A ⊢ B ⊢ B • There is one derivation rule for each ⊢ A ∧ B ⊢ [a/x]A (a is fresh) command in the language ⊢ A ⊢ [a/x]A ⊢ ∀x.A • Plus, the evil rule of consequence … … ⊢ B ⊢ ∀x.A ⊢ [e/x]A ⊢ ∃ x.A ⊢ B ⊢ A’ ⇒ A ⊢ {A} c {B} ⊢ B ⇒ B’ ⊢ A ⇒ B ⊢ [e/x]A ⊢ ∃x.A ⊢ B ⊢ {A ’} c {B ’} #19 #20 Derivation Rules for Hoare Logic Alternate Hoare Rules • One rule for each syntactic construct: • For some constructs multiple rules are possible: • (Exercise: these rules can be derived from the previous ones using the consequence rules) ⊢ {A} skip {A} ⊢ {[e/x]A} x := e {A} ⊢ {A} c 1 {B} ⊢ {B} c 2 {C} ⊢ {A} x := e { ∃x0.[x 0/x]A ∧ x = [x 0/x]e} ⊢ {A} c ; c {C} 1 2 (This one is called the “forward” axiom for assignment) ⊢ {A ∧ b} c 1 {B} ⊢ {A ∧ ¬ b} c 2 {B} ⊢ A ∧ b ⇒ C ⊢ {C} c {A} ⊢ A ∧ ¬ b ⇒ B ⊢ {A} if b then c 1 else c 2 {B} ⊢ {A} while b do c {B} ⊢ {A ∧ b} c {A} (C is the loop invariant ) ⊢ {A} while b do c {A ∧ ¬ b} #21 #22 Example: Assignment The Assignment Axiom (Cont.) • (Assuming that x does not appear in e) •“Assignment is undoubtedly the most characteristic feature of programming a digital computer, and Prove that {true} x := e { x = e } one that most clearly distinguishes it from other • Assignment Rule: branches of mathematics. It is surprising therefore that the axiom governing our reasoning about ⊢ {e = e} x := e {x = e} assignment is quite as simple as any to be found in because [e/x](x = e) → e = e elementary logic .” - Tony Hoare • Caveats are sometimes needed for languages with • Use Assignment + Consequence: aliasing (the strong update problem): ⊢ true ⇒ e = e ⊢ {e = e} x := e {x = e} – If x and y are aliased then { true } x := 5 { x + y = 10} ⊢ {true} x := e {x = e} is true #23 #24 4 Example: Conditional Example: Loop • We want to derive that ⊢ {x 0} while x 5 do x := x + 1 { x = 6} D :: ⊢ {true ∧ y 0} x := 1 {x > 0} 1 • Use the rule for while with invariant x 6 D2 :: ⊢ {true ∧ y > 0} x := y {x > 0} ⊢ {true} if y 0 then x := 1 else x := y {x > 0} ⊢ x 6 ∧ x 5 ⇒ x+1 6 ⊢ {x+1 6} x := x+1 { x 6 } ⊢ {x 6 ∧ x 5 } x := x+1 { x 6} ⊢ {x 6} while x 5 do x := x+1 { x 6 ∧ x > 5} • D1 and D 2 were obtained by consequence and assignment. D 1 details: Then finish-off with consequence ⊢ {1 > 0} x := 1 {x > 0} ⊢ true ∧ y 0 ⇒ 1 > 0 • ⊢ x 0 ⇒ x 6 ⊢ D :: {true ∧ y 0} x := 1 {x > 0} 1 ⊢ x 6 ∧ x > 5 ⇒ x = 6 ⊢ {x 6} while … { x 6 ∧ x > 5} ⊢ {x 0} while … {x = 6} #25 #26 Using Hoare Rules Where Do We Stand? We have a language for asserting properties • Hoare rules are mostly syntax directed • of programs • There are three wrinkles: – What invariant to use for while? (fix points, widening) • We know when such an assertion is true – When to apply consequence? (theorem proving) • We also have a symbolic method for deriving How do you prove the implications involved in – assertions meaning consequence? (theorem proving) • This is how theorem proving gets in the picture A σ A {A} c {B} soundness {A} c {B} – This turns out to be doable! symbolic – The loop invariants turn out
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constructive Design of a Hierarchy of Semantics of a Transition System by Abstract Interpretation
    1 Constructive Design of a Hierarchy of Semantics of a Transition System by Abstract Interpretation Patrick Cousota aD´epartement d’Informatique, Ecole´ Normale Sup´erieure, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris cedex 05, France, [email protected], http://www.di.ens.fr/~cousot We construct a hierarchy of semantics by successive abstract interpretations. Starting from the maximal trace semantics of a transition system, we derive the big-step seman- tics, termination and nontermination semantics, Plotkin’s natural, Smyth’s demoniac and Hoare’s angelic relational semantics and equivalent nondeterministic denotational se- mantics (with alternative powerdomains to the Egli-Milner and Smyth constructions), D. Scott’s deterministic denotational semantics, the generalized and Dijkstra’s conser- vative/liberal predicate transformer semantics, the generalized/total and Hoare’s partial correctness axiomatic semantics and the corresponding proof methods. All the semantics are presented in a uniform fixpoint form and the correspondences between these seman- tics are established through composable Galois connections, each semantics being formally calculated by abstract interpretation of a more concrete one using Kleene and/or Tarski fixpoint approximation transfer theorems. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Abstraction of Fixpoint Semantics 3 2.1 Fixpoint Semantics ............................... 3 2.2 Fixpoint Semantics Approximation ...................... 4 2.3 Fixpoint Semantics Transfer .......................... 5 2.4 Semantics Abstraction ............................. 7 2.5 Fixpoint Semantics Fusion ........................... 8 2.6 Fixpoint Iterates Reordering .......................... 8 3 Transition/Small-Step Operational Semantics 9 4 Finite and Infinite Sequences 9 4.1 Sequences .................................... 9 4.2 Concatenation of Sequences .......................... 10 4.3 Junction of Sequences ............................. 10 5 Maximal Trace Semantics 10 2 5.1 Fixpoint Finite Trace Semantics .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Unified Theory of Operational and Axiomatic Semantics — Extended Abstract —
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository Towards a Unified Theory of Operational and Axiomatic Semantics — Extended Abstract — Grigore Ros¸u and Andrei S¸tefanescu˘ Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign fgrosu, [email protected] Abstract. This paper presents a nine-rule language-independent proof system that takes an operational semantics as axioms and derives program properties, including ones corresponding to Hoare triples. This eliminates the need for language-specific Hoare-style proof rules in order to verify programs, and, implicitly, the tedious step of proving such proof rules sound for each language separately. The key proof rule is Circularity, which is coinductive in nature and allows for reasoning about constructs with repetitive behaviors (e.g., loops). The generic proof system is shown sound and has been implemented in the MatchC program verifier. 1 Introduction An operational semantics defines a formal executable model of a language typically in terms of a transition relation cfg ) cfg0 between program configurations, and can serve as a formal basis for language understanding, design, and implementation. On the other hand, an axiomatic semantics defines a proof system typically in terms of Hoare triples f g code f 0g, and can serve as a basis for program reasoning and verification. Operational semantics are well-understood and comparatively easier to define than axiomatic semantics for complex languages. More importantly, operational semantics are typically executable, and thus testable. For example, we can test them by executing the program benchmarks that compiler testers use, as has been done with the operational semantics of C [5].
    [Show full text]
  • Axiomatic Semantics
    Advanced Topics in Programming Languages Spring Semester, 2012 Lecture 6: April 24, 2012 Lecturer: Mooly Sagiv Scribe: Michal Balas and Yair Asa Axiomatic Semantics 6.1 The basic idea The problem we would like to solve is how to prove that a program does what we require of it. Given a program, we specify its required behavior based on our intuitive understanding of it. We can run it according to the operational semantics or denotational semantics and compare to its behavior there. For some programs we need to be more abstract (for example programs that receive input), and then it is necessary to use some logic to reason about the program (and how it behaves on a set of inputs and not in one specific execution path). In this case we may eventually develop a formal proof system for properties of the program or showing that it satisfies a requirement. We can then use the proof system to show correctness. These rules of the proof system are called Hoare or Floyd-Hoare rules. Floyd-rules are for flow-charts and Hoare-rules are for structured languages. Originally their approach was advocated not just for proving properties of programs but also giving a method for explaining the meaning of program. The meaning of a program was specified in terms of \axioms" saying how to prove properties of it, in other words it is given by a set of verification rules. Therefore, this approach was named axiomatic semantics. Axiomatic semantics has many applications, such as: Program verifiers • Symbolic execution tools for bug hunting • Software validation tools • Malware detection • Automatic test generation • It is also used for proving the correctness of algorithms or hardware descriptions, \extended static checking (e.g., checking array bounds), and documenting programs and interfaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Classes Provable Through Contracts, Models and Frames
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CiteSeerX DISS. ETH NO. 17610 Making classes provable through contracts, models and frames A dissertation submitted to the SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ZURICH (ETH Zurich)¨ for the degree of Doctor of Sciences presented by Bernd Schoeller Diplom-Informatiker, TU Berlin born April 5th, 1974 citizen of Federal Republic of Germany accepted on the recommendation of Prof. Dr. Bertrand Meyer, examiner Prof. Dr. Martin Odersky, co-examiner Prof. Dr. Jonathan S. Ostroff, co-examiner 2007 ABSTRACT Software correctness is a relation between code and a specification of the expected behavior of the software component. Without proper specifica- tions, correct software cannot be defined. The Design by Contract methodology is a way to tightly integrate spec- ifications into software development. It has proved to be a light-weight and at the same time powerful description technique that is accepted by software developers. In its more than 20 years of existence, it has demon- strated many uses: documentation, understanding object-oriented inheri- tance, runtime assertion checking, or fully automated testing. This thesis approaches the formal verification of contracted code. It conducts an analysis of Eiffel and how contracts are expressed in the lan- guage as it is now. It formalizes the programming language providing an operational semantics and a formal list of correctness conditions in terms of this operational semantics. It introduces the concept of axiomatic classes and provides a full library of axiomatic classes, called the mathematical model library to overcome prob- lems of contracts on unbounded data structures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Monastic Rules of Visigothic Iberia: a Study of Their Text and Language
    THE MONASTIC RULES OF VISIGOTHIC IBERIA: A STUDY OF THEIR TEXT AND LANGUAGE By NEIL ALLIES A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham July 2009 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This thesis is concerned with the monastic rules that were written in seventh century Iberia and the relationship that existed between them and their intended, contemporary, audience. It aims to investigate this relationship from three distinct, yet related, perspectives: physical, literary and philological. After establishing the historical and historiographical background of the texts, the thesis investigates firstly the presence of a monastic rule as a physical text and its role in a monastery and its relationship with issues of early medieval literacy. It then turns to look at the use of literary techniques and structures in the texts and their relationship with literary culture more generally at the time. Finally, the thesis turns to issues of the language that the monastic rules were written in and the relationship between the spoken and written registers not only of their authors, but also of their audiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Introduction
    Chapter Intro duction A language is a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings among people by the use of conventionalized signs In contrast a programming lan guage can be thought of as a syntactic formalism which provides ameans for the communication of computations among p eople and abstract machines Elements of a programming language are often called programs They are formed according to formal rules which dene the relations between the var ious comp onents of the language Examples of programming languages are conventional languages likePascal or C and also the more the oretical languages such as the calculus or CCS A programming language can b e interpreted on the basis of our intuitive con cept of computation However an informal and vague interpretation of a pro gramming language may cause inconsistency and ambiguity As a consequence dierent implementations maybegiven for the same language p ossibly leading to dierent sets of computations for the same program Had the language in terpretation b een dened in a formal way the implementation could b e proved or disproved correct There are dierent reasons why a formal interpretation of a programming language is desirable to give programmers unambiguous and p erhaps informative answers ab out the language in order to write correct programs to give implementers a precise denition of the language and to develop an abstract but intuitive mo del of the language in order to reason ab out programs and to aid program development from sp ecications Mathematics often emphasizes
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Language
    Aspects of Language CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 : Definitions CHAPTER 2 : Origin CHAPTER 3 : Grammar CHAPTER 4 : Usage and meaning CHAPTER 5 : Philosophy of language CHAPTER 6 : Mind and language CHAPTER 7 : Programming language CHAPTER 8 : Derivation and definitions CHAPTER 9 : Ambiguity CHAPTER 10 : Linguistics CHAPTER 11 : Modern theories CHAPTER 12 : Sign language CHAPTER 1 Language Language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics. Estimates of the number of languages in the world vary between 6,000 and 7,000. However, any precise estimate depends on a partly arbitrary distinction between languages and dialects. Natural languages are spoken or signed, but any language can be encoded into secondary media using auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli, for example, in graphic writing, braille, or whistling. This is because human language is modality-independent. When used as a general concept, "language" may refer to the cognitive ability to learn and use systems of complex communication, or to describe the set of rules that makes up these systems, or the set of utterances that can be produced from those rules. All languages rely on the process of semiosis to relate signs with particular meanings. Oral and sign languages contain a phonological system that governs how symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes, and a syntactic system that governs how words and morphemes are combined to form phrases and utterances. Human language has the properties of productivity, recursivity, and displacement, and it relies entirely on social convention and learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts of Programming Languages, Eleventh Edition, Global Edition
    GLOBAL EDITION Concepts of Programming Languages ELEVENTH EDITION Robert W. Sebesta digital resources for students Your new textbook provides 12-month access to digital resources that may include VideoNotes (step-by-step video tutorials on programming concepts), source code, web chapters, quizzes, and more. Refer to the preface in the textbook for a detailed list of resources. Follow the instructions below to register for the Companion Website for Robert Sebesta’s Concepts of Programming Languages, Eleventh Edition, Global Edition. 1. Go to www.pearsonglobaleditions.com/Sebesta 2. Click Companion Website 3. Click Register and follow the on-screen instructions to create a login name and password Use a coin to scratch off the coating and reveal your access code. Do not use a sharp knife or other sharp object as it may damage the code. Use the login name and password you created during registration to start using the digital resources that accompany your textbook. IMPORTANT: This access code can only be used once. This subscription is valid for 12 months upon activation and is not transferable. If the access code has already been revealed it may no longer be valid. For technical support go to http://247pearsoned.custhelp.com This page intentionally left blank CONCEPTS OF PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ELEVENTH EDITION GLOBAL EDITION This page intentionally left blank CONCEPTS OF PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ELEVENTH EDITION GLOBAL EDITION ROBERT W. SEBESTA University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Global Edition contributions by Soumen Mukherjee RCC Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Concurrent Structures in Game Semantics Simon Castellan
    Concurrent structures in game semantics Simon Castellan To cite this version: Simon Castellan. Concurrent structures in game semantics. Logic in Computer Science [cs.LO]. Université de Lyon, 2017. English. NNT : 2017LYSEN034. tel-01587718 HAL Id: tel-01587718 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01587718 Submitted on 14 Sep 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Numéro National de Thèse: 2017LYSENO34. THÈSE DE DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSTÉ DE LYON opérée par l’École Normale Supérieure de Lyon École doctorale: 512 École doctorale en Informatique et Mathématiques de Lyon Spécialité de doctorat : Informatique Discipline : Informatique fondamentale Soutenue publiquement le 13/07/2017, par: Simon Castellan Structures concurrentes en sémantique des jeux Devant le jury composé de: Hyland, Martin Professor at the University of Cambridge Rapporteur Dal Lago, Ugo Professore Associoto all’Università di Bologna Rapporteur Alglave, Jade Senior Lecturer at University College London Examinatrice Curien, Pierre-Louis Directeur de Rercherche à l’Université Paris VII Examinateur Winskel, Glynn Professor at the University of Cambridge Examinateur Yoshida, Nobuko Professor at Imperial College London Examinatrice Laurent, Olivier Directeur de Recherche à l’ENS de Lyon Directeur de thèse Clairambault, Pierre Chargé de Recherche à l’ENS de Lyon Co-Encadrant 1 2 Remerciements et autres acknowledgements Mais, vous savez, moi je ne crois pas qu’il y ait de bonne ou de mauvaise situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Axiomatic Semantics Review
    • Still need volunteers to teach – BDDs – SAT-solvers Axiomatic Semantics – SAT-based decision procedures – Temporal logic (and maybe other modal logics) – ESC/Java • Please let me know soon Automated Deduction - George Necula - Lecture 2 1 Automated Deduction - George Necula - Lecture 2 2 Review - Operational Semantics More Semantics • We have an imperative language with pointers and • There is also denotational semantics function calls – Each program has a meaning in the form of a mathematical object – Compositional • We have defined the semantics of the language – More complex formalism • e.g. what are appropriate meanings ? • Operational semantics – Relatively simple • Neither is good for arguing program correctness – Not compositional (due to loops and recursive calls) – Operational semantics requires running the code – Adequate guide for an implementation – Denotational semantics requires complex calculations • We do instead: Programs → Theorems → Proofs Automated Deduction - George Necula - Lecture 2 3 Automated Deduction - George Necula - Lecture 2 4 Programs →→→ Theorems. Axiomatic Semantics Partial Correctness Assertions • Consists of: • The assertions we make about programs are of the – A language for making assertions about programs form: – Rules for establishing when assertions hold {A} c {B } with the meaning that: • Typical assertions: – Whenever we start the execution of c in a state that – During the execution, only non-null pointers are dereferenced satisfies A, the program either does not terminate or it – This program
    [Show full text]
  • Unifying Semantics for Programming and Verification
    Unifying Semantics for Programming and Verification Sergey Goncharov April 28, 2018 Contents 1 Unifying Semantics: Methodology2 1.1 General View of Semantics...........................2 1.1.1 Denotational vs. Operational Semantics...............3 1.1.2 Denotational vs. Axiomatic Semantics................5 1.2 Towards Categorical Semantics........................6 1.2.1 Algebraic vs. Domain Semantics...................6 1.2.2 Domains and Universes........................7 1.2.3 Extensional Monads..........................8 1.2.4 Intensional Coalgebras.........................9 1.2.5 Extensional Collapse.......................... 10 1.2.6 Unifying Semantics........................... 11 2 Unifying Semantics: Worked Scenarios 12 2.1 Coalgebraic Machines and Process Algebra................. 12 2.1.1 Generic Observations and Coalgebraic Chomsky Hierarchy... 12 2.1.2 Coalgebraic Weak Bisimulation.................... 16 2.2 Monad-Based Program Logics......................... 17 2.2.1 Hoare Logic for Order-Enriched Effects............... 17 2.2.2 Calculi for Asynchronous Side-Effecting Processes......... 21 2.3 Guarded and Unguarded Iteration...................... 23 2.3.1 Unguarded Recursion via Complete Elgot Monads........ 23 2.3.2 Unifying Guarded and Unguarded Iteration............ 26 2.3.3 Monads for Iteration vs. Algebras for Iteration........... 30 2.4 Effect Combination............................... 31 3 Auhtor's Publications 33 4 References 34 1 1 Unifying Semantics: Methodology Correct well-designed semantics precedes solutions of principal research problems in computer science. As a somewhat allusive, but spectacular illustration of this motto we may view the seminal work of Turing [110], which arguably gave rise to computer science as a separate discipline not entirely reducible to pure mathematics. In his famous result of undecidability of the halting problem for what then became known as the Turing machine he made two essential steps to achieve the goal: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Formalization of the Data Flow Diagram Rules for Consistency Check
    International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.1, No.4, October 2010 FORMALIZATION OF THE DATA FLOW DIAGRAM RULES FOR CONSISTENCY CHECK Rosziati Ibrahim and Siow Yen Yen Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM), Parit Raja, 86400, Batu Pahat, Johor Malaysia [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT In system development life cycle (SDLC), a system model can be developed using Data Flow Diagram (DFD). DFD is graphical diagrams for specifying, constructing and visualizing the model of a system. DFD is used in defining the requirements in a graphical view. In this paper, we focus on DFD and its rules for drawing and defining the diagrams. We then formalize these rules and develop the tool based on the formalized rules. The formalized rules for consistency check between the diagrams are used in developing the tool. This is to ensure the syntax for drawing the diagrams is correct and strictly followed. The tool automates the process of manual consistency check between data flow diagrams. KEYWORDS Consistency Check, Context Diagram, Data Flow Diagram, Formal Method 1. INTRODUCTION System development life cycle (SDLC) is an essential process uses during the development of any system. SDLC consists of four main phases. They are planning, analysis, design and implementation. During analysis phase, context diagram and data flow diagrams are used to produce the process model of a system. A consistency of the context diagram to lower-level data flow diagrams is very important in smoothing up developing the process model of a system.
    [Show full text]