Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
sav07_lecture_3 [2007/03/22 13:39] yuanjianwz |
sav07_lecture_3 [2007/03/30 21:52] vkuncak |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
We can apply these rules to reduce the size of formulas. | We can apply these rules to reduce the size of formulas. | ||
- | |||
==== Approximation ==== | ==== Approximation ==== | ||
- | If (F -> G) is value, we say that F is stronger than F and we say G is weaker than F. | + | If (F -> G) is valid, we say that F is stronger than G and we say G is weaker than F. |
When a formula would be too complicated, we can instead create a simpler approximate formula. To be sound, if our goal is to prove a property, we need to generate a *larger* relation, which corresponds to a weaker formula describing a relation, and a stronger verification condition. (If we were trying to identify counterexamples, we would do the opposite). | When a formula would be too complicated, we can instead create a simpler approximate formula. To be sound, if our goal is to prove a property, we need to generate a *larger* relation, which corresponds to a weaker formula describing a relation, and a stronger verification condition. (If we were trying to identify counterexamples, we would do the opposite). | ||
Line 137: | Line 136: | ||
Note: when proving our verification condition, instead of proving that semantics of relation implies error=false, it's same as proving that the formula for set sp(U,r) implies error=false, where U is the universal relation, or, in terms of formulas, computing the strongest postcondition of formula 'true'. | Note: when proving our verification condition, instead of proving that semantics of relation implies error=false, it's same as proving that the formula for set sp(U,r) implies error=false, where U is the universal relation, or, in terms of formulas, computing the strongest postcondition of formula 'true'. | ||
+ | ==== Weakest preconditions ==== | ||
+ | While symbolic execution computes formula by going forward along the program syntax tree, [[sav07_lecture_2#weakest_preconditions|weakest precondition]] computes formula by going backward. | ||
+ | \begin{equation*} | ||
+ | wp(r,P) = \{ s_1 \mid \forall s_2. (s_1,s_2) \in r \rightarrow s_2 \in P \} | ||
+ | \end{equation*} | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- | ==== Weakest preconditions ==== | ||
- | |||
- | While symbolic execution computes formula by going forward along the program syntax tree, weakest precondition computes formula by going backward. | ||
We know that the weakest precondition holds following conditions for each relation r and sets Q1, Q2: | We know that the weakest precondition holds following conditions for each relation r and sets Q1, Q2: | ||
wp(r, Q1 ∧ Q2) = wp(r,Q1) ∧ wp(r,Q2) | wp(r, Q1 ∧ Q2) = wp(r,Q1) ∧ wp(r,Q2) | ||
Line 159: | Line 153: | ||
wp(Q, c1 ; c2) = wp(wp(Q,c2),c1) | wp(Q, c1 ; c2) = wp(wp(Q,c2),c1) | ||
wp(Q, havoc(x)) = ∀x.Q (or introduce a fresh variable) | wp(Q, havoc(x)) = ∀x.Q (or introduce a fresh variable) | ||
- | How to prove: wp(Q,c1 [] c2) = wp(Q,c1) ∧ wp(Q,c2)? | + | The idea to get : wp(Q,c1 [] c2) = wp(Q,c1) ∧ wp(Q,c2) |
CR(c1 [] c2) = CR(c1) ∨ CR(c2) | CR(c1 [] c2) = CR(c1) ∨ CR(c2) | ||
CR(c1 [] c2) -> error = false (it's valid) | CR(c1 [] c2) -> error = false (it's valid) | ||
Line 214: | Line 208: | ||
Proof: small model theorem. | Proof: small model theorem. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
Line 223: | Line 219: | ||
The idea is to reduce the case, for example: | The idea is to reduce the case, for example: | ||
- | ∃x,y,z.F | + | //∃x,y,z.F// |
reduce to | reduce to | ||
- | ∃x≤ M,y≤ M,z ≤ M.F | + | //∃x≤ M,y≤ M,z ≤ M.F// |
- | + | Then we try to figure out the boundary M. | |
- | We try to figure out the boundary M. | + | |
Another example: | Another example: | ||
- | ¬t1 < t2 | + | //¬t1 < t2// |
reduce to | reduce to | ||
- | t2+1≤t1 | + | //t2+1≤t1// |
How about the not equal ? | How about the not equal ? | ||
- | t1≠t2 | + | //t1≠t2// |
can be reduced to | can be reduced to | ||
- | (t1 < t2 ) ∨ (t2 < t1) => (t1 ≤ t2-1) ∨ (t2 ≤ t1-1) | + | //(t1 < t2 ) ∨ (t2 < t1) => (t1 ≤ t2-1) ∨ (t2 ≤ t1-1)// |
First step: transform to disjunctive normal form. | First step: transform to disjunctive normal form. | ||
Line 286: | Line 281: | ||
* Presburger Arithmetic (PA) bounds: {{papadimitriou81complexityintegerprogramming.pdf}} | * Presburger Arithmetic (PA) bounds: {{papadimitriou81complexityintegerprogramming.pdf}} | ||
* Specializing PA bounds: http://www.lmcs-online.org/ojs/viewarticle.php?id=43&layout=abstract | * Specializing PA bounds: http://www.lmcs-online.org/ojs/viewarticle.php?id=43&layout=abstract | ||
- |