Composition: A Way to Make Proofs Harder

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1536)


Compositional reasoning about a system means writing its specification as the parallel composition of components and reasoning separately about each component. When distracting language issues are removed and the underlying mathematics is revealed, compositional reasoning is seen to be of little use.


Model Check Temporal Logic Decomposition Theorem Predicate Logic Railroad Station 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Martín Abadi and Leslie Lamport. The existence of refinement mappings. Theoretical Computer Science, 82(2):253–284, May 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martín Abadi and Leslie Lamport. Conjoining specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 17(3):507–534, May 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yehuda Afek, Geoffrey Brown, and Michael Merritt. Lazy caching. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15(1):182–205, January 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowen Alpern and Fred B. Schneider. Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters, 21(4):181–185, October 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. A. Ashcroft. Proving assertions about parallel programs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 10:110–135, February 1975.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edsger W. Dijkstra. A personal summary of the Gries-Owicki theory. In Edsger W. Dijkstra, editor, Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective, chapter EWD554, pages 188–199. Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. P. Kurshan and Leslie Lamport. Verification of a multiplier: 64 bits and beyond. In Costas Courcoubetis, editor, Computer-Aided Verification, volume 697 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 166–179, Berlin, June 1993. Springer-Verlag. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, CAV’93.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leslie Lamport. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-3(2):125–143, March 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leslie Lamport. The temporal logic of actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3):872–923, May 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leslie Lamport. How to write a proof. American Mathematical Monthly, 102(7):600–608, August–September 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Owicki and D. Gries. An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs I. Acta Informatica, 6(4):319–340, 1976.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Systems Research CenterDigital Equipment CorporationUSA

Personalised recommendations