Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byKeyla Fincher Modified about 1 year ago

1
Hoare’s Correctness Triplets Dijkstra’s Predicate Transformers Axiomatic Semantics

2
gcd-lcm algorithm w/ invariant {PRE: (x = n) and (y = m)} u := x; v := y; while {INV: 2*m*n = x*v + y*u} (x <> y) do if x > y then x := x - y; u := u + v else y := y - x; v := v + u fi od {POST:(x = gcd(m, n)) and (lcm(m, n) = (u+v) div 2)} cs784(tk/pm)2

3
Goal of a program = IO Relation Problem Specification –Properties satisfied by the input and expected of the output (usually described using “assertions”). –E.g., Sorting problem Input : Sequence of numbers Output: Permutation of input that is ordered. View Point –All other properties are ignored. Timing behavior Resource consumption … cs784(tk/pm)3

4
ax·i·om n.1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim 2. An established rule, principle, or law. 3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. From a dictionary cs784(tk/pm)4

5
Axiomatic Semantics Capture the semantics of the elements of the PL as axioms Capture the semantics of composition as a rule of inference. Apply the standard rules/logic of inference. Consider termination separately. cs784(tk/pm)5

6
States and Assertions States: Variables mapped to Values –Includes all variables –Files etc. are considered “global” variables. –No notion of value-undefined variables –At a given moment in execution An assertion is a logic formula involving program variables, arithmetic/boolean operations, etc. All assertions are attached to a control point. Assertions: States mapped to Boolean –Boolean connectives: and, or, not, implies, … –For-all, There-exists –Special predicates defined just for use in assertions (not for use in the program). cs784(tk/pm)6

7
Hoare’s Logic Hoare Triplets: {P} S {Q} –P, pre-condition assertion; S, statements of a PL; Q, post-condition assertion –If S begins executing in a state satisfying P, upon completion of S, the resulting state satisfies Q. –{P} S {Q} has no relevance if S is begun otherwise. A Hoare triplet is either true or false. Never undefined. The entire {P}S{Q} is considered true if the resulting state satisfies Q if and when S terminates. If not, the entire {P}S{Q} is false. cs784(tk/pm)7

8
Hoare Triplet Examples true triplets –{x = 11 } x := 0 { x = 0 } we can give a weaker precondition –{x = 0 } x := x + 1 { x = 1 } –{y = 0} if x <> y then x:= y fi { x = 0 } –{false } x := 0 { x = 111 } correct because “we cannot begin” –no state satisfies false post condition can be any thing you dream –{true} while true do od {x = 0} true is the weakest of all predicates correct because control never reaches post –{false} while true do od {x = 0} false is the strongest of all predicates false triplet –{true} if x 0 } cs784(tk/pm)8

9
Weaker/Stronger An assertion R is said to be weaker than assertion P if –the truth of P implies the truth of R written: P→R –equivalently not P or R. For arbitrary A, B we have: A and B → B –This general idea is from Propositional Calculus n > 0 is of course weaker than n = 1, but this follows from Number Theory. cs784(tk/pm)9

10
10 Weaker/Stronger P’ States P’ P States Q’ Q P’ weaker P P’ Q’ stronger Q’ Q

11
Partial vs Total Correctness Are P and S such that termination is guaranteed? S is partially correct for P and Q iff whenever the execution terminates, the resulting state satisfies Q. S is totally correct for P and Q iff the execution is guaranteed to terminate, and the resulting state satisfies Q. cs784(tk/pm)11

12
Hoare Triplet Examples 1.Totally correct (hence, partially correct) a.{x = 11} x := 0 {x = 0} b.{x = 0} x := x + 1 {x = 1} c.{y = 0}if x <> y then x:= y fi {x = 0} d.{false} while true do S od {x = 0} e.{false} x := 0 {x = 111} 2.Not totally correct, but partially correct –{true} while true do S od {x = 0} 3.Not partially correct –{true} if x 0} cs784(tk/pm)12

13
Assignment axiom {Q(e)} x := e {Q(x)} Q(x) has free occurrences of x. Q(e): every free x in Q replaced with e Assumption: e has no side effects. Caveats –If x is not a “whole” variable (e.g., a[2]), we need to work harder. –PL is assumed to not facilitate aliasing. cs784(tk/pm)13

14
Inference Rules Rules are written as Hypotheses: H1, H2, H Conclusion: C1 Can also be stated as: –H1 and H2 and H3 implies C1 –Given H1, H2, and H3, we can conclude C1. cs784(tk/pm)14

15
Soundness and Completeness Soundness is about “validity” Completeness is about “deducibililty” Ideally in a formal system, we should have both. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem: –Cannot have both Inference Rules ought to be sound –What we proved/ inferred/ deduced is valid Examples of Unsound Rules –A and B and C not B –x > y implies x > y+1 (in the context of numbers) All the rules we present from now on are sound cs784(tk/pm)15

16
Rule of Consequence Suppose: {P’} S {Q’}, P=>P’, Q’=>Q Conclude: {P} S {Q} Replace –precondition by a stronger one –postcondition by a weaker one cs784(tk/pm)16

17
Statement Composition Rule {P} S1 {R}, {R} S2 {Q} {P} S1;S2 {Q} Using Rule of Consequence {P} S1 {R1}, R1 R2, {R2} S2 {Q} {P} S1;S2 {Q} cs784(tk/pm)17

18
if-then-else-fi Hoare’s Triplets {P and B} S1 {Q} {P and not B} S2 {Q} {P} if B then S1 else S2 fi {Q} We assumed that B is side-effect free –Execution of B does not alter state cs784(tk/pm)18

19
Invariants An invariant is an assertion whose truth-value does not change Recall: All assertions are attached to a control point. An Example: x > y –The values of x and y may or may not change each time control reaches that point. –But suppose the > relationship remains true. –Then x > y is an invariant cs784(tk/pm)19

20
Loop Invariants Semantics of while-loop {I and B} S {I} {I} while B do S od {I and not B} Termination of while-loop is not included in the above. We assumed that B is side-effect free. cs784(tk/pm)20

21
Data Invariants Well-defined OOP classes Public methods ought to have a pre- and post-conditions defined There is a common portion across all public methods That common portion is known as the data invariant of the class. cs784(tk/pm)21

22
while-loop: Hoare’s Approach Wish to prove: {P} while B do S od {Q} –Given: P, B, S and Q –Not given: a loop invariant I The I is expected to be true just before testing B To prove {P} while B do S od {Q}, discover a strong enough loop invariant I so that 1.P => I 2.{I and B} S {I} 3.I and not B => Q We used the Rule of Consequence twice cs784(tk/pm)22

23
A while-loop example { n > 0 and x = 1 and y = 1} while (n > y) do y := y + 1; x := x*y od {x = n!} cs784(tk/pm)23

24
while-loop: Choose the Invariant Invariant I should be such that –I and not B Q –I and not (n > y) (x = n!) Choose (n ≥ y and x = y!) as our I Precondition Invariant –n > 0 and x=1 and y=1 n ≥ 1 and 1=1! cs784(tk/pm)24

25
while-loop: Verify Invariant I === n ≥ y and x = y! Verify: {I and n > y} y:= y + 1; x:=x*y {I} 1.{I and n > y} y:= y + 1 {n ≥ y and x*y = y!} 2.{I and n > y} y:= y + 1 {n ≥ y and x= (y-1)!} 3.(I and n > y) (n ≥ y+1 and x= (y+1-1)!) 4.(I and n > y) (n > y and x= y!) 5.(n ≥ y and x = y! and n > y) (n > y and x= y!) 6.QED cs784(tk/pm)25

26
while-loop: I and not B Q I === n ≥ y and x = y! n ≥ y and x = y! and not (n > y) x = n! n = y and x = y! x = n! QED cs784(tk/pm)26

27
while-loop: Termination Termination is not part of Hoare’s Triplets General technique: –Find a quantity that decreases in every iteration. –And, has a lower bound –The quantity may or may not be computed by the algorithm For our example: Consider n – y –values of y: 1, 2, …, n-1, n –values of n - y: n-1, n-2, …, 1, 0 cs784(tk/pm)27

28
Weakest Preconditions We want to determine minimally what must be true immediately before executing S so that –assertion Q is true after S terminates. –S is guaranteed to terminate The Weakest-Precondition of S is a mathematical function mapping any post condition Q to the "weakest" precondition Pw. –Pw is a condition on the initial state ensuring that execution of S terminates in a final state satisfying R. –Among all such conditions Pw is the weakest –wp(S, Q) = Pw cs784(tk/pm)28

29
Dijkstra’s wp(S, Q) Let Pw = wp(S, Q) Def of wp(S, Q): Weakest precondition such that if S is started in a state satisfying Pw, S is guaranteed to terminate and Q holds in the resulting state. –Consider all predicates Pi so that {Pi}S{Q}. –Discard any Pi that does not guarantee termination of S. –Among the Pi remaining, choose the weakest. This is Pw. {P} S {Q} versus P => wp(S, Q) –{Pw} S {Q} is true. –But, the semantics of {Pw} S {Q} does not include termination. –If P => wp(S, Q) then {P}S{Q} also, and furthermore S terminates. cs784(tk/pm)29

30
Properties of wp Law of the Excluded Miracle wp(S, false) = false Distributivity of Conjunction wp(S, P and Q) = wp(S,P) and wp(S,Q) Law of Monotonicity (Q→R) → (wp(S,Q)→wp(S,R)) Distributivity of Disjunction wp(S,P) or wp(S, Q) → wp(S,P or Q) cs784(tk/pm)30

31
Predicate Transformers Assignment wp(x := e, Q(x)) = Q(e) Composition wp(S1;S2, Q) = wp(S1, wp(S2,Q)) cs784(tk/pm)31

32
A Correctness Proof {x=0 and y=0} x:=x+1;y:=y+1 {x = y} wp(x:=x+1;y:=y+1, x = y) wp(x:=x+1, wp(y:=y+1, x = y)) === wp(x:=x+1, x = y+1) === x+1 = y+1 === x = y x = 0 and y = 0 x = y cs784(tk/pm)32

33
if-then-else-fi in Dijkstra’s wp wp(if B then S1 else S2 fi, Q) === (B wp(S1,Q)) and (not B wp(S2,Q)) === (B and wp(S1,Q)) or (not B and wp(S2,Q)) cs784(tk/pm)33

34
wp-semantics of while-loops DO== whileB doS od IF== if B thenS fi Let k stand for the number of iterations of S Clearly, k >= 0 If k > 0, while B do S od is the same as: –if B then S fi; while B do S od cs784(tk/pm)34

35
while-loop: wp Approach wp(DO, Q) = P0 or there-exists k > 0: Pk States satisfying Pi cause i-iterations of while-loop before halting in a state in Q. Pi defined inductively –P0 = not B and Q –… cs784(tk/pm)35

36
wp(DO, Q) There exists a k, k ≥ 0, such that H(k, Q) H is defined as follows H(0, Q) = not B and Q H(k, Q) = H(0, Q) or wp(IF, H(k-1, Q)) cs784(tk/pm)36

37
Example (same as before) { n>0 and x=1 and y=1} while (n > y) do y := y + 1; x := x*y od {x = n!} cs784(tk/pm)37

38
Example: while-loop correctness Pre === n>0 and x=1 and y=1 P0 === y >= n and x = n! Pk === B and wp(S, Pk-1) P1 === y > n and y+1>=n and x*(y+1) = n! Pk === y=n-k and x=(n-k)! Weakest Precondition: W === there exists k >= 0 such that P0 or Pk Verification : For k = n-1: Pre => W cs784(tk/pm)38

39
Induction Proof Hypothesis : Pk = (y=n-k and x=(n-k)!) Pk+1 = B and wp(S,Pk) = y

40
Detailed Work wp(y:=y+1;x:=x*y, x=y!and n>=y) = wp(y:=y+1, x*y=y! and n>=y) = wp(y:=y+1, x=(y-1)! and n>=y) = x=(y+1-1)! and n>=y+1) = x=y! and n>y cs784(tk/pm)40

41
gcd-lcm algorithm w/ invariant {PRE: (x = n) and (y = m)} u := x; v := y; while {INV: 2*m*n = x*v + y*u} (x <> y) do if x > y then x := x - y; u := u + v else y := y - x; v := v + u fi od {POST:(x = gcd(m, n)) and (lcm(m, n) = (u+v) div 2)} cs784(tk/pm)41

42
gcd-lcm algorithm proof PRE implies Loop Invariant –(x = n) and (y = m) implies 2*m*n = x*v + y*u {Invariant and B} Loop-Body {Invariant} {2*n*m = x*v + y*u and x <> y} loop-body {2*n*m = x*v + y*u} Invariant and not B implies POST 2*n*m = x*v + y*u and x == y implies (x = gcd(n,m)) and (lcm(n,m) = (u+v) div 2) cs784(tk/pm)42

43
gcd-lcm algorithm proof Invariant and not B implies POST 2*m*n = x*v + y*u and x == y implies (x = gcd(m, n)) and (lcm(m, n) = (u+v) div 2) Simplifying 2*m*n = x*(u + v) and x == y implies (x = gcd(m, n)) and (lcm(m, n) = (u+v) div 2) cs784(tk/pm)43

44
gcd-lcm algorithm proof Simplifying 2*m*n = x*(u + v) and x == y implies (x = gcd(m, n)) and (x*lcm(m, n) = m*n) Simplifying 2*m*n = x*(u + v) and x == y implies (x = gcd(m, n)) and (x*lcm(m, n) = m*n) cs784(tk/pm)44

45
Some Properties of lcm-gcd gcd() and lcm() are symmetric –gcd(m, n) = gcd(n, m) –lcm(m, n) = lcm(n, m) gcd(m, n) = gcd(m + k*n, n) –where k is a natural number. gcd(m, n) * lcm(m, n) = m * n cs784(tk/pm)45

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google