Using Domain-Independent Problems for Introducing Formal Methods

  • Raymond Boute
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4085)


The key to the integration of formal methods into engineering practice is education. In teaching, domain-independent problems —i.e., not requiring prior engineering background— offer many advantages.

Such problems are widely available, but this paper adds two dimensions that are lacking in typical solutions yet are crucial to formal methods: (i) the translation of informal statements into formal expressions; (ii) the role of formal calculation (including proofs) in exposing risks or misunderstandings and in discovering pathways to solutions.

A few example problems illustrate this: (a) a small logical one showing the importance of fully capturing informal statements; (b) a combinatorial one showing how, in going from “real-world” formulations to mathematical ones, formal methods can cover more aspects than classical mathematics, and a half-page formal program semantics suitable for beginners is presented as a support; (c) a larger one showing how a single problem can contain enough elements to serve as a Leitmotiv for all notational and reasoning issues in a complete introductory course.

An important final observation is that, in teaching formal methods, no approach can be a substitute for an open mind, as extreme mathphobia appears resistant to any motivation.

Index Terms: Domain-independent problems, Formal methods, Functional Predicate Calculus, Funmath, Generic functionals, Teaching, Specification, Word problems.


Formal Method Word Problem Formal Calculation Classical Mathematic Informal Statement 
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.
    Almstrum, V.L.: Investigating Student Difficulties With Mathematical Logic. In: Neville Dean, C., Hinchey, M.G. (eds.) Teaching and Learning Formal Methods, pp. 131–160. Academic Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Backhouse, R.: Algorithmic Problem Solving. Lecture Notes, University of Nottingham (2005), On the web:
  3. 3.
    Boute, R.T.: Funmath illustrated: a declarative formalism and application examples. Declarative Systems Series No. 1, Computing Science Institute, University of Nijmegen (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boute, R.: Concrete Generic Functionals: Principles, Design and Applications. In: Gibbons, J., Jeuring, J. (eds.) Generic Programming, pp. 89–119. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boute, R.: Functional declarative language design and predicate calculus: a practical approach. ACM TOPLAS 27(5), 988–1047 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boute, R.: Calculational semantics: deriving programming theories from equations by functional predicate calculus. ACM TOPLAS (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlke, K.: Fun and Challenging Math Problems for the Young, and Young At Heart,
  8. 8.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: How Computing Science created a new mathematical style, EWD 1073 (1990),
  9. 9.
    Gardner, M.: My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles. Dover, Mineola (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gries, D.: The Science of Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (1981) (5th printing, 1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gries, D., Schneider, F.: A Logical Approach to Discrete Math. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gries, D.: The need for education in useful formal logic. IEEE Computer 29(4), 29–30 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Example problems in the psychological study of human reasoning,
  14. 14.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems: The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Page, R.: BESEME: Better Software Engineering through Mathematics Education, project presentation,
  16. 16.
    Propp, J.: Self-Referential Aptitude Test. Math. Horizons 12, 35 (2005), Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smullyan, R.: The Lady or the Tiger. Random House (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mike Spivey, J.: The Z notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spolsky, J.: The Perils of JavaSchools. Joel on Software (December 29, 2005),
  20. 20.
    Taylor, P.: Practical Foundations of Mathematics (2nd printing), Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 59. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000), quotation from comment on chapter 1 in:
  21. 21.
    Thomas, G.B., Weir, M.D., Hass, J., Giordano, F.R.: Thomas’s Calculus, 11th edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vaandrager, F.: Private communication (February 2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wing, J.M.: Weaving Formal Methods into the Undergraduate Curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST), May 2000, pp. 2–7 (2000),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Boute
    • 1
  1. 1.INTECUniversiteit GentBelgium

Personalised recommendations