Results 1 
3 of
3
A methodology for largescale hardware verification
 Formal Methods in ComputerAided Design: 3rd International Conference, FMCAD, volume 1954 of LNCS
, 2000
"... Abstract. We present a formal verification methodology for datapathdominated hardware. This provides a systematic but flexible framework within which to organize the activities undertaken in largescale verification efforts and to structure the associated code and proofscript artifacts. The methodo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We present a formal verification methodology for datapathdominated hardware. This provides a systematic but flexible framework within which to organize the activities undertaken in largescale verification efforts and to structure the associated code and proofscript artifacts. The methodology deploys a combination of model checking and lightweight theorem proving in higherorder logic, tightly integrated within a generalpurpose functional programming language that allows the framework to be easily customized and also serves as a specification language. We illustrate the methodology—which has has proved highly effective in largescale industrial trials—with the verification of an IEEEcompliant, extended precision floatingpoint adder. 1
A Comparison of the Mathematical Proof Languages Mizar and Isar
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 2002
"... The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also di#ers in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mizar mode on ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also di#ers in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mizar mode on top of a tactical prover, allowing one to combine a mathematical proof language with other styles of proof checking. Currently the only fully developed Mizar mode in this style is the Isar proof language for the Isabelle theorem prover. In fact the Isar language has become the o#cial input language to the Isabelle system, even though many users still use its lowlevel tactical part only.
A Comparison of Mizar and Isar
 J. Automated Reasoning
, 2002
"... Abstract. The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also differs in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also differs in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mizar mode on top of a tactical prover, allowing one to combine a mathematical proof language with other styles of proof checking. Currently the only fully developed Mizar mode in this style is the Isar proof language for the Isabelle theorem prover. In fact the Isar language has become the official input language to the Isabelle system, even though many users still use its lowlevel tactical part only. In this paper we compare Mizar and Isar. A small example, Euclid’s proof of the existence of infinitely many primes, is shown in both systems. We also include slightly higherlevel views of formal proof sketches. Moreover a list of differences between Mizar and Isar is presented, highlighting the strengths of both systems from the perspective of endusers. Finally, we point out some key differences of the