P. A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3:3--27, January 1988.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... Steinbruggen 83] was considerably longer because almost all systems were totally written by hand without using any tools. The construction time of computer supported systems for formal reasoning like LCF, NuPRL, the Boyer Moore theorem prover and the cso proof editor (for an overview see [Lindsay 88] was in the most cases also considerably longer for the same reasons. The complete BMF editor, including the dynamic transformations, was written in 3700 lines of pure SSL (the attribute grararaar specification language of the so) without using any non standard SSL constructions. Therefore, ....

Lindsay, P.A. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, January 1988.

....further research and development effort. Despite the present inadequacies, safety critical software is the one application domain where the added confidence of mechanical proofs may be justifiable if feasible, even though the developmentcostofsuch an approach (of which more later) is high. [87] provides a good snapshot of what is currently available. Perhaps an indication of the seriousness with which the UK formal methods communitynow takes safety critical computer systems is that the first article of the first volume of the relatively recently introduced journal Formal Aspects of ....

LINDSAY, P.A.: `A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning', Software Engineering Journal, 1988, 3, (1), pp. 3--27

....further research and development effort. Despite the present inadequacies, safety critical software is the one application domain where the added confidence of mechanical proofs may be justifiable if feasible, even though the development cost of such an approach (of which more later) is high. [78] provides a good snapshot of what is currently available. Perhaps an indication of the seriousness with which the UK formal methods communitynow takes safety critical computer systems is that the first article of the first volume of the relatively recently introduced journal Formal Aspects of ....

LINDSAY, P.A.: `A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning', Software Engineering Journal,1988,3, (1), pp. 3--27

....along with a fully interactive graphical interface to the translator and the verification back ends. TLP in a wider context In the area of computer assisted formal reasoning it is common to speak about theorem proving as opposed to proof checking. As stated by Peter Lindsay in a survey article [26], the term theorem provers generally refer to highly automated systems, such as resolution provers and the Boyer Moore prover [5, 6] As well model checkers should be added to this category. As proof checkers we usually refer to language based systems that support some kind of computer assisted ....

Peter A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3(1), January 1988.

....and how this happens. Formal methods are becoming increasingly important in the development of rigorous engineering practices in many different problem domains. The research community has given birth to a large number of different methods and languages which are commonly accepted as being formal [41, 16, 1, 5, 33]. To promote the use of formal methods in industry we must produce a more unified model of formal software development [19] onto which individual approaches can be mapped. Formal languages have a large number of different roles to play. Consequently, choosing a requirements modelling language ....

P. A. LINDSAY. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. SEJ, January 1988.

....solve problems. Languages which re ect the idea that the store of a computer is changed by some updating operation are known as imperative and in most such languages 61 See also [Luc67, Kin69] all citations taken from secondary material [ed. 62 Useful survey articles are [Cra85, Kem86, Lin88] 63 For a recent book, see [Pau87] 31 the updating is performed by assignment statements. Assignment statements have the undesirable property that the so called variables of a program contain di erent values at di erent points in the execution of a program. A problem compounded by ....

P. A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3:3-27, January 1988.

....are rarely built on time, within budget and up to requirements. There are many approaches which aim to make software development more reliable; the most promising one is, according to [Bjorner Jones 82] formal methods. This paradigm advocates the use of techniques firmly based on mathematics [Lindsay 88] involving formal languages, which allow one to express precise and unambiguous specifications, and methodologies for program development. Communicating systems are playing a larger role in applications of Information Technology (IT) Examples of such systems range from vending machines to ....

P. A. Lindsay. A Survey of Mechanical Support for Formal Reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3(1), January 1988.

....derived to show conformance between refinements of the same specification. Proof obligations are provided in VDM to ensure the mathematical self consistency of VDM SL specifications. To prove these obligations automatic theorem provers can be used but, although progress has been made since Lindsay [104] surveyed the systems available for mechanical proving in the late 80s, most provers require interactions with a skilled user to construct the proofs required. A recent method for translating VDM SL to the specification language of the theorem prover PVS is described in [105] The difficulty in ....

P. Lindsay, "A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning," Software Engineering Journal, pp. 3--27, Jan. 1988.

....to show conformance between refinements of the same specification. Proof obligations are provided in VDM to ensure the mathematical self consistency of VDM SL specifications. To prove these obligations automatic theorems provers can be used but, although progress has been made since Lindsay [93] surveyed the systems available for mechanical proving in the late 80s, most provers require interactions with a skilled user to construct the proofs required. A recent method for translating VDM SL to the specification language of the theorem prover PVS is described in [94] The difficulty in ....

P. Lindsay, "A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning," Software Engineering Journal, pp. 3--27, Jan. 1988.

....(i 2 dom events , i 1) 2 dom values) We are now in a position to define a system behaviour property. Definition 4 A system behaviour property is a predicate characterising membership of a set of SystemHistory . 7. 3 Comparing Proof Strategies In the literature on mechanised theorem proving [16], there exists a broad division of proof strategies into two classes: i) those that support bottom up, or forward proof development; and, ii) those that support top down, or goaldirected proof development. In the first strategy, the user begins with known results, and uses rules of inference to ....

P. A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, pages 3--27, January 1988.

....concentrating instead on inconsistency detection and identification, and leaving inconsistency handling to be performed by the user of these tools. Nevertheless, some scope for conflict resolution is provided by negotiationsupport tools [25] A class of research tools known as theorem provers [16] also offer some scope for inconsistency handling in that they attempt to prove that a description (e.g. a specification) satisfies a set of properties or contains no contradictions. Therefore, these tools have the capability of reasoning about why an inconsistency exists when a proof cannot be ....

Lindsay, P. A. (1988); "A Survey of Mechanical Support for Formal Reasoning"; Software Engineering Journal (special issue on mechanical support for formal reasoning), 3(1): 3-27, January 1988; IEE, UK.

....the literature on software engineering. 4.1 Reasoning Tools The most important reasoning tool is the theorem prover. In nearly all literature I looked at, the theorem prover was used to decide properties of a proposed formal specification. For an overview of many theorem provers, see Lindsay [20]. He also gives an interesting framework to evaluate theorem provers. In general, a theorem prover is a computer program that can assist in proving formulae in a logical theory. One can distinguish between interactive and automatic ones. The first is more a proof checker, in which the program ....

P. A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. SE, 3(1), January 1988.

....reasoning, support for automated proof construction, and user interface. A summary of some of these systems, along with a number of interesting comments about issues (such as differences in logics, proof power, theory construction, and styles of user interaction) may be found in Lindsay s article [14]. The Kemmerer study [13] compares the use of four software verification systems (all based on classical logic) on particular programs. In this report we compare two interactive systems for proof development and checking: The Boyer Moore Theorem Prover and the Nuprl Proof Development System. We ....

Peter A. Lindsay. "A Survey of Mechanical Support for Formal Reasoning." Software Engineering Journal, January, 1988.

....further research and development effort. Despite the present inadequacies, safety critical software is the one application domain where the added confidence of mechanical proofs may be justifiable if feasible, even though the development cost of such an approach (of which more later) is high. [78] provides a good snapshot of what is currently available. Perhaps an indication of the seriousness with which the UK formal methods community now takes safety critical computer systems is that the first article of the first volume of the relatively recently introduced journal Formal Aspects of ....

LINDSAY, P.A.: `A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning', Software Engineering Journal, 1988, 3, (1), pp. 3--27

....further research and development effort. Despite the present inadequacies, safety critical software is the one application domain where the added confidence of mechanical proofs may be justifiable if feasible, even though the development cost of such an approach (of which more later) is high. [87] provides a good snapshot of what is currently available. Perhaps an indication of the seriousness with which the UK formal methods community now takes safety critical computer systems is that the first article of the first volume of the relatively recently introduced journal Formal Aspects of ....

LINDSAY, P.A.: `A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning', Software Engineering Journal, 1988, 3, (1), pp. 3--27

....limited automated support for removing errors from programs) Some scope for conflict resolution is provided by negotiation support tools [25] which can be useful for handling inconsistencies that occur between development participants. Finally, a class of research tools known as theorem provers [19] offer some scope for inconsistency handling in that they attempt to prove that a description (e.g. a specification) satisfies a set of properties or contains no contradictions. Therefore, these tools have the capability of reasoning about why an inconsistency exists when a proof cannot be ....

P. A. Lindsay (1988); "A Survey of Mechanical Support for Formal Reasoning"; Software Engineering Journal (special issue on mechanical support for formal reasoning), 3(1): 3-27, January 1988; IEE, UK.

....for the more difficult ones. We have found that many of the steps involved in going from high level abstract specifications to efficient executable implementations depend on leaps of mathematical insight which seem to be well beyond the abilities of current generations of automatic theorem provers [22]. In interactive theorem provers such as HOL [1] and Isabelle [2] however, such leaps can be encoded as proof tactics. The Care library will be populated with general and domain specific proof tactics, with the intention that Care users experiment with different combinations of tactics until they ....

P.A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3(1):3--27, January 1988.

....prover We illustrate the method on the specification of a (hypothetical) interactive theorem prover, which is being used to develop a theory: that is, a collection of mathematical theorems and their proofs. Theorem proving is a relatively small, but important, part of formal software development [15, 16]. It is increasingly being recommended in conjunction with formal specification and design by standards for critical software, such as used in safety or security critical applications [17, 18] Interactive theorem proving has been chosen to illustrate the main ideas of this paper because it ....

....mutually dependent. generations of theorem provers support more flexible styles of working, whereby theories can be developed on line in a piecemeal fashion, for example allowing the user to interrupt a proof in order to conjecture and prove useful lemmas, or to work on another proof in parallel [15]. For the present case study, we shall thus suppose that the system supports the storage and use of incomplete proofs. The next question is whether to allow circularities. It is critical to logical soundness of the theory being developed that circular reasoning be eliminated: see Fig. 1. However, ....

P.A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3(1):3--27, January 1988.

.... To date, most specification matching and retrieval research has concentrated on the level of individual functional units within a formally specified component: e.g. function signature in functional language programming systems [18, 20] definitions, axioms and theorems in theorem proving systems [12]; and individual specification statements in formal software development environments [21, 10] see Section 2 below for details) The typical approach is to search library modules unit by unit; when a matching unit is found, the module and the match are returned, for manual adaptation in other ....

....classes, which can contain a number of different units such as schemas, axioms definitions etc. together with sub classes. Most theorem proving systems provide module like structures called theories, which consist of a number of individual units such as theorems, axioms, constants and definitions [12]. Modules in Care [7] referred to as templates, consist of a set of formally specified units such as fragments, types and theories. 7 This section discusses requirements for retrieval strategies for modules, and presents a framework for formally specifying such strategies. 3.1 Preliminaries ....

P.A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3(1):3--27, January 1988.

No context found.

P. A. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3:3--27, January 1988.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC