Advertisement

Alternative proof procedures for finite-state machines in higher-order logic

  • Klaus Schneider
  • Ramayya Kumar
  • Thomas Kropf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 780)

Abstract

Verification of digital circuits in higher-order logic often requires the proof of temporal propositional logic formulae. The implementation of decision procedures for this logic or finite-state machines is however not very easy within the HOL system, since it requires the proof of certain fixpoint theorems and a creation of a new theory based on it. The main contribution of this paper is to give some alternative proof procedures so that proof tactics can be developed for directly solving these goals. These proof procedures can be classified into two categories. Firstly, a set of easily implementable proof methods which do not use knowledge of fixpoint theorems are given. Since these methods are incomplete, the second category exploits an external program for computing fixpoint lemmata which can then be easily proved in HOL.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BCMD90]
    J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and L.J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In 5th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [BuCL91]
    J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, and D. E. Long. Representing circuits more efficiently in symbolic model checking. In 28th Design Automation Conference, pages 403–407, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [CoBM89]
    O. Coudert, C. Berthet, and J.C. Madre. Verification of synchronous sequential machines based on symbolic execution. In Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, pages 365–373, Grenoble, June 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [JoSe93]
    J. Joyce and C. H. Seger. Linking BDD-Based Symbolic Evalutation to Interactive Theorem-Proving. In Proceedings of the 30 th Design Automation Conference, Dallas, Texas, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [KuSK93]
    R. Kumar, K. Schneider, and Th. Kropf. Structuring and automating hardware proofs in a higher-order theorem-proving environment. Journal of Formal Methods in System Design, 2(2):165–223, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [Loew92]
    P. Loewenstein. A formal theory of simulations between infinite automata. In L.J.M. Claesen and M. J.C. Gordon, editors, Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, volume A-20 of IFIP Transactions, pages 227–246, Leuven, Belgium, 1992. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  7. [ScKK92b]
    K. Schneider, R. Kumar, and Th. Kropf. Efficient representation and computation of tableau proofs. In L.J.M. Claesen and M.J.C. Gordon, editors, Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, volume A-20 of IFIP Transactions, pages 39–58, Leuven, Belgium, 1992. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. [ScKK93a]
    K. Schneider, R. Kumar, and Th. Kropf. Hardware verification with first-order BDD's. In Conference on Computer Hardware Description Languages, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [ScKK93c]
    K. Schneider, R. Kumar, and Th. Kropf. Eliminating higher-order quanitifers to obtain decision procedures for hardware verification. In International Workshop on Higher-Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, Vancouver, Canada, August 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Schneider
    • 1
  • Ramayya Kumar
    • 2
  • Thomas Kropf
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Rechnerentwurf und FehlertoleranzUniversität KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Forschungszentrum InformatikKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations