Results 1 
8 of
8
Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification
 In POPL ’85: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGACTSIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages
, 1985
"... We present an algorithm for checking satisfiability of a linear time temporal logic formula over a finite state concurrent program. The running time of the algorithm is exponential in the size of the formula but linear in the size of the checked program. The algorithm yields also a formal proof i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 257 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present an algorithm for checking satisfiability of a linear time temporal logic formula over a finite state concurrent program. The running time of the algorithm is exponential in the size of the formula but linear in the size of the checked program. The algorithm yields also a formal proof in case the formula is valid over the program. The algorithm has four versions that check satisfiability by unrestricted, impartial, just and fair computations of the given program.
A Simple Approach to Specifying Concurrent Systems
, 1988
"... In the transition axiom method, safety properties of a concurrent system can be specified by programs; liveness properties are specified by assertions in a simple temporal logic. The method is described with some simple examples, and its logical foundation is informally explored through a careful ex ..."
Abstract

Cited by 124 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In the transition axiom method, safety properties of a concurrent system can be specified by programs; liveness properties are specified by assertions in a simple temporal logic. The method is described with some simple examples, and its logical foundation is informally explored through a careful examination of what it means to implement a specification. Language issues and other practical details are largely ignored.
Mechanical Verification of Concurrent Systems with TLA
, 1992
"... . We describe an initial version of a system for mechanically checking the correctness proof of a concurrent system. Input to the system consists of the correctness properties, expressed in TLA (the temporal logic of actions), and their proofs, written in a humanly readable, hierarchically structure ..."
Abstract

Cited by 55 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We describe an initial version of a system for mechanically checking the correctness proof of a concurrent system. Input to the system consists of the correctness properties, expressed in TLA (the temporal logic of actions), and their proofs, written in a humanly readable, hierarchically structured form. The system uses a mechanical verifier to check each step of the proof, translating the step's assertion into a theorem in the verifier's logic and its proof into instructions for the verifier. Checking is now done by LP (the Larch Prover), using two di#erent translationsone for action reasoning and one for temporal reasoning. The use of additional mechanical verifiers is planned. Our immediate goal is a practical system for mechanically checking proofs of behavioral properties of a concurrent system; we assume ordinary properties of the data structures used by the system. 1 Introduction TLA, the Temporal Logic of Actions, is a logic for specifying and reasoning about concurrent s...
Proving Possibility Properties
, 1998
"... A method is described for proving "always possibly" properties of specifications in formalisms with lineartime trace semantics. It is shown to be relatively complete for TLA (Temporal Logic of Actions) specifications. Key words: Branching time, linear time, temporal logic. 1 Introduction ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A method is described for proving "always possibly" properties of specifications in formalisms with lineartime trace semantics. It is shown to be relatively complete for TLA (Temporal Logic of Actions) specifications. Key words: Branching time, linear time, temporal logic. 1 Introduction Does proving possibility properties provide any useful information about a system? Why prove that it is possible for a user to press q on the keyboard and for a q subsequently to appear on the screen? We know that the user can always press the q key, and what good is knowing that a q might appear on the screen? Isn't it enough to prove that no q appears on the screen unless a q is typed (a safety property), and that, if a q is typed, then a q eventually does appear (a liveness property)? Although possibility properties may tell us nothing about a system, we do not reason about a system; we reason about a mathematical model of a system. A possibility property can provide a sanity check on our model. P...
unknown title
, 1990
"... This work may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any commercial ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This work may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any commercial