Advertisement

TLA +  Proofs

  • Denis Cousineau
  • Damien Doligez
  • Leslie Lamport
  • Stephan Merz
  • Daniel Ricketts
  • Hernán Vanzetto
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7436)

Abstract

TLA +  is a specification language based on standard set theory and temporal logic that has constructs for hierarchical proofs. We describe how to write TLA +  proofs and check them with TLAPS, the TLA +  Proof System. We use Peterson’s mutual exclusion algorithm as a simple example and show how TLAPS and the Toolbox (an IDE for TLA + ) help users to manage large, complex proofs.

Keywords

Temporal Logic Proof System Mutual Exclusion Reachable State Proof Obligation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balser, M., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Thums, A.: Formal System Development with KIV. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, pp. 363–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonichon, R., Delahaye, D., Doligez, D.: Zenon: An Extensible Automated Theorem Prover Producing Checkable Proofs. In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4790, pp. 151–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaudhuri, K., et al.: Verifying Safety Properties with the TLA +  Proof System. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6173, pp. 142–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamport, L.: What good is temporal logic? In: Mason, R.E.A. (ed.) Information Processing 1983. IFIP, pp. 657–668, North-Holland, Paris (September 1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems: The TLA +  Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamport, L.: The PlusCal Algorithm Language. In: Leucker, M., Morgan, C. (eds.) ICTAC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5684, pp. 36–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamport, L.: Byzantizing Paxos by refinement (2011), http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/web-byzpaxos.pdf
  8. 8.
    Lamport, L.: How to write a 21st century proof. Journal of Fixed Point Theory and Applications (March 2012), doi:10.1007/s11784-012-0071-6Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu, T., Merz, S., Weidenbach, C.: Towards Verification of the Pastry Protocol Using TLA + . In: Bruni, R., Dingel, J. (eds.) FORTE 2011 and FMOODS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6722, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merz, S., Vanzetto, H.: Automatic Verification of TLA +  Proof Obligations with SMT Solvers. In: Bjørner, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-18 2012. LNCS, vol. 7180, pp. 289–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parno, B., Lorch, J.R., Douceur, J.R., Mickens, J., McCune, J.M.: Memoir: Practical state continuity for protected modules. In: Security and Privacy, pp. 379–394. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peterson, G.L.: Myths about the mutual exclusion problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 12(3), 115–116 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The TLAPS Project. Web page, http://msr-inria.inria.fr/~doligez/tlaps/
  14. 14.
    Wenzel, M., Paulson, L.C., Nipkow, T.: The Isabelle Framework. In: Mohamed, O.A., Muñoz, C., Tahar, S. (eds.) TPHOLs 2008. LNCS, vol. 5170, pp. 33–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiedijk, F. (ed.): The Seventeen Provers of the World. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3600. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Cousineau
    • 1
  • Damien Doligez
    • 2
  • Leslie Lamport
    • 3
  • Stephan Merz
    • 4
  • Daniel Ricketts
    • 5
  • Hernán Vanzetto
    • 4
  1. 1.Inria - Université Paris SudOrsayFrance
  2. 2.InriaParisFrance
  3. 3.Microsoft ResearchMountain ViewU.S.A.
  4. 4.Inria Nancy & LORIAVillers-lès-NancyFrance
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations