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_skeleton [2007/03/21 11:01] vkuncak |
sav07_lecture_3_skeleton [2007/03/21 14:20] vkuncak |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Lecture 3 (Skeleton) ====== | ====== Lecture 3 (Skeleton) ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Recall what we are doing: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{vcg-big-picture.png}} | ||
| + | |||
| ===== Converting programs (with simple values) to formulas ===== | ===== Converting programs (with simple values) to formulas ===== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 30: | ||
| R( c ) -> error=false | R( c ) -> error=false | ||
| + | |||
| Line 38: | Line 44: | ||
| R(havoc x) = frame(x) | R(havoc x) = frame(x) | ||
| - | R(assume F) = F[x:=x_0, y:=y_0, error:=error_0] | + | R(assume F) = F[x:=x_0, y:=y_0, error:=error_0] & frame() |
| R(assert F) = (F -> frame) | R(assert F) = (F -> frame) | ||
| Line 153: | Line 159: | ||
| Alternative: | Alternative: | ||
| * decide that you will only loop for formulas of restricted form, as in abstract interpretation and data flow analysis (next week) | * decide that you will only loop for formulas of restricted form, as in abstract interpretation and data flow analysis (next week) | ||
| + | |||
| Line 164: | Line 171: | ||
| \end{equation*} | \end{equation*} | ||
| - | whose validity we need to prove. We here assume that F contains only | + | whose validity we need to prove. We here assume that F contains only linear arithmetic. Note: we can check satisfiability of $F\ \land\ (\mbox{error}=\mbox{true})$. We show an algorithm to check this satisfiability. |
| - | + | ||
| - | Note: we can check satisfiability of $F\ \land\ (\mbox{error}=\mbox{true})$. | + | |
| ==== Quantifier Presburger arithmetic ==== | ==== Quantifier Presburger arithmetic ==== | ||
| Line 176: | Line 181: | ||
| T ::= var | T + T | K * T (terms) | T ::= var | T + T | K * T (terms) | ||
| A ::= T=T | T <= T (atomic formulas) | A ::= T=T | T <= T (atomic formulas) | ||
| - | F ::= F & F | F|F | ~F (formulas) | + | F ::= A | F & F | F|F | ~F (formulas) |
| To get full Presburger arithmetic, allow existential and universal quantifiers in formula as well. | To get full Presburger arithmetic, allow existential and universal quantifiers in formula as well. | ||
| Line 185: | Line 190: | ||
| Proof: small model theorem. | Proof: small model theorem. | ||
| + | |||
| Line 213: | Line 219: | ||
| * solution of Ax=b (A regular) has as components rationals of form p/q with bounded p,q | * solution of Ax=b (A regular) has as components rationals of form p/q with bounded p,q | ||
| * duality of linear programming | * duality of linear programming | ||
| - | * obtains bound $M = n(ma)^{2m+1}$, which needs $(2m+1)(\log n + \log m + \log a)$ bits | + | * obtains bound $M = n(ma)^{2m+1}$, which needs $\log n + (2m+1)\log(ma)$ bits |
| * we could encode the problem into SAT: use circuits for addition, comparison etc. | * we could encode the problem into SAT: use circuits for addition, comparison etc. | ||
| Line 241: | Line 247: | ||
| * 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 | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||