Axiomatic Verification I

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Automated Theorem Proving Lecture 1. Program verification is undecidable! Given program P and specification S, does P satisfy S?
Advertisements

Functional Verification III Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida Software Testing and Verification Lecture Notes 23.
Hoare’s Correctness Triplets Dijkstra’s Predicate Transformers
Rigorous Software Development CSCI-GA Instructor: Thomas Wies Spring 2012 Lecture 11.
Axiomatic Verification I Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida Software Testing and Verification Lecture 17.
Axiomatic Semantics The meaning of a program is defined by a formal system that allows one to deduce true properties of that program. No specific meaning.
Copyright © 2006 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.1-1 ICS 410: Programming Languages Chapter 3 : Describing Syntax and Semantics Axiomatic Semantics.
ISBN Chapter 3 Describing Syntax and Semantics.
1 Semantic Description of Programming languages. 2 Static versus Dynamic Semantics n Static Semantics represents legal forms of programs that cannot be.
1/22 Programs : Semantics and Verification Charngki PSWLAB Programs: Semantics and Verification Mordechai Ben-Ari Mathematical Logic for Computer.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 04/12/11 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.
Dr. Muhammed Al-Mulhem 1ICS ICS 535 Design and Implementation of Programming Languages Part 1 Fundamentals (Chapter 4) Axiomatic Semantics ICS 535.
4/17/2017 Section 3.6 Program Correctness ch3.6.
Software Verification Bertrand Meyer Chair of Software Engineering Lecture 2: Axiomatic semantics.
Describing Syntax and Semantics
Proving Program Correctness The Axiomatic Approach.
Chapter 3 (Part 3): Mathematical Reasoning, Induction & Recursion  Recursive Algorithms (3.5)  Program Correctness (3.6)
© by Kenneth H. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics & its Applications, Sixth Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, 2007 Chapter 4 (Part 3): Mathematical Reasoning, Induction.
Exam 2 Help Session Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida Software Testing and Verification.
Proofs of Correctness: An Introduction to Axiomatic Verification Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida CEN 5035 Software Engineering.
CSI 3125, Axiomatic Semantics, page 1 Axiomatic semantics The assignment statement Statement composition The "if-then-else" statement The "while" statement.
COP4020 Programming Languages Introduction to Axiomatic Semantics Prof. Robert van Engelen.
13 Aug 2013 Program Verification. Proofs about Programs Why make you study logic? Why make you do proofs? Because we want to prove properties of programs.
CSC3315 (Spring 2009)1 CSC 3315 Languages & Compilers Hamid Harroud School of Science and Engineering, Akhawayn University
Functional Verification I Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida Software Testing and Verification Lecture Notes 21.
Axiomatic Verification II Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida Software Testing and Verification Lecture Notes 18.
Chapter 4 (Part 3): Mathematical Reasoning, Induction & Recursion
Functional Verification III
(State) Model-Based Approaches I Software Specification Lecture 35
Formal Methods in Software Engineering 1
Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida
Functional Verification IV: Revisiting Loop Invariants
Predicate Transforms II
Functional Verification IV: Revisiting Loop Invariants
Functional Verification III
White-Box Testing Techniques III
Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 1
Formal Program Specification
Predicate Transforms I
Lecture 5 Floyd-Hoare Style Verification
Functional Verification I
Axiomatic semantics Points to discuss: The assignment statement
Programming Languages and Compilers (CS 421)
Programming Languages 2nd edition Tucker and Noonan
Formal Program Specification
Exercise Solutions: Functional Verification
Axiomatic Verification II
White-Box Testing Techniques III
Functional Verification I
White-Box Testing Techniques I
Axiomatic Verification II
Axiomatic Verification I
Predicate Transformers
Proofs of Correctness: An Introduction to Axiomatic Verification
Functional Verification II
Functional Verification IV: Revisiting Loop Invariants
Predicate Transforms I
Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida
Functional Verification III
Predicate Transforms II
Functional Verification III
Functional Verification IV: Revisiting Loop Invariants
Predicate Transforms I
Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida
Programming Languages and Compilers (CS 421)
Formal Program Specification
Programming Languages 2nd edition Tucker and Noonan
COP4020 Programming Languages
Program Correctness an introduction.
Presentation transcript:

Axiomatic Verification I Software Testing and Verification Lecture 17 Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida

Axiomatic Verification I Introduction Weak correctness predicate Assignment statements Sequencing Selection statements

Introduction What is Axiomatic Verification†? A formal method of reasoning about the functional correctness of a structured, sequential program by tracing its state changes from an initial (i.e., pre-) condition to a final (i.e., post-) condition according to a set of self-evident rules (i.e., axioms). † Also know as “Hoare logic” or “Floyd-Hoare logic.”

Introduction (cont’d) What is its primary goal? To provide a means for “proving” (and in some cases, “disproving”) the functional correctness of a sequential program with respect to its (formal) specification.

Introduction (cont’d) What are the benefits of studying axiomatic verification? Understanding its limitations. Deeper insights into programming and program structures. Criteria for judging both programs and programming languages. The ability to formally verify small (or parts of large) sequential programs.

Introduction (cont’d) Bottom line: even if you never attempt to “prove” a program correct outside this course, the study of formal verification should change the way you write and read programs. There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult. –Tony Hoare

Weak Correctness Predicate To prove that program S is (“weakly” or “partially”) correct with respect to pre-condition P and post-condition Q, it is sufficient to show: {P} S {Q}. Interpretation of {P} S {Q}: “if the input (initial state) satisfies pre-condition P and (if) program S executes and terminates, then the output (final state) must satisfy post-condition Q.”

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) Truth table interpretation: P (before S executes) S terminates Q (after S executes) {P} S {Q} T YES must be T could be F F Don’t Care T* NO N/A * In this case, {P} S {Q} is said to be “vacuously true.”

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) Truth table interpretation: P (before S executes) S terminates Q (after S executes) {P} S {Q} T YES must be T could be F F Don’t Care T* NO N/A * In this case, {P} S {Q} is said to be “vacuously true.”

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) Truth table interpretation: P (before S executes) S terminates Q (after S executes) {P} S {Q} T YES must be T could be F F Don’t Care T* NO N/A * In this case, {P} S {Q} is said to be “vacuously true.”

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) Truth table interpretation: P (before S executes) S terminates Q (after S executes) {P} S {Q} T YES must be T could be F F Don’t Care T* NO N/A * In this case, {P} S {Q} is said to be “vacuously true.”

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) Note that {P} S {Q} is really just a “double conditional” of the form: (A Л B)  C where A is “P holds before executing S”, B is “S terminates”, and C is “Q holds after executing S”. Therefore, the one and only case for which {P} S {Q} is false is: “Q could be false if S terminates, given that P held before S executes.”

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (1) {x=1} y := x+1 {y>0}

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (1) {x=1} y := x+1 {y>0} True, because if P holds initially, Q must hold when S terminates

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (2) {x>0} x := x-1 {x>0}

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (2) {x>0} x := x-1 {x>0} False, because Q may not hold when S terminates given that P holds initially.

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (3) {1=2} k := 5 {k<0}

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (3) {1=2} k := 5 {k<0} True (vacuously), since P cannot hold before S executes.

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (4) {true} while x <> 5 do x := x-1 {x=5} (Hint: When will S terminate?)

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) What are the truth values of the following assertions? (4) {true} while x <> 5 do x := x-1 {x=5} (Hint: When will S terminate?) True, since Q must hold if S terminates.

Weak Correctness Predicate (cont’d) We now consider techniques for proving that such assertions hold for structured programs comprised of assignment statements, if-then (-else) statements, and while loops. (Why these constructs?)

Reasoning about Assignment Statements For each of the following pre-conditions, P, and assignment statements, S, identify a “strong” post-condition, Q, such that {P} S {Q} would hold. A “strong” post-condition captures all after-execution state information of interest. However, we won’t bother with assertions such as X=X’ (“the final value of X is the same as the initial value of X”) for the time being.

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 J := J+2 {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 J := J+2 {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {K=3} J := J+2 {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X<0 Л Y>0} {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X<0 Л Y=-X} {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X<0 Л Y=-X} {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X<0 Л Y=-X} {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Illustrative Example 17 X: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {X[I]=J} J = 17, I = 4 I := I+1 17 X: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {X[I-1]=J} J = 17, I = 4 5

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X<0 Л Y=-X} {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=6} K := 3 {J=6 Л K=3} J := J+2 {J=8} {A<B} Min := A {A<B Л Min=A} {A<B Л B<C} D := C {A<B Л B<C Л D=C} {X<0} Y := -X {X<0 Л Y=-X} {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1 {X[I-1]=J-1}

Illustrative Example 17 X: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {X[I-1]=J} J = 17, I = 5 J := J+1 17 X: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {X[I-1]=J-1} J = 17 18, I = 5

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) For each of the following post-conditions, Q, and assignment statements, S, identify a “weak” pre-condition, P, such that {P} S {Q} would hold. (A “weak” pre-condition reflects only what needs to be true initially.)

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {I=4} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7Л I=4} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {I=4} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {I=4} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {I=4} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {K=17} {I=4} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {false} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {false} {I=17} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {false} {I=17} {I>4} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {false} {I=17} {I>4} I := I+2 {I>6} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {false} {I=17} {I>4} I := I+2 {I>6} {X=7} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {false} {I=17} {I>4} I := I+2 {I>6} {X=7} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {Y<8}

Reasoning about Assignment Statements (cont’d) {P} S {Q} {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} {true} {I=4} {false} {I=17} {I>4} I := I+2 {I>6} {X=7} Y := X+3 {Y=10} {X<5} {Y<8}

When does ({P} S {Q})  ({K} S {W})? We just determined that {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} holds. We can deduce from this that {J=7} I := 4 {J=7} also holds since {J=7 Л I=4} is stronger than {J=7}. That is, because: {J=7 Л I=4}  {J=7}

When does ({P} S {Q})  ({K} S {W})? (cont’d) Similarly, if we know that {J=7} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} holds, it follows that {J=7 Л K=17} I := 4 {J=7 Л I=4} also holds since {J=7} is weaker than {J=7 Л K=17}. That is, because: {J=7 Л K=17}  {J=7}

When does ({P} S {Q})  ({K} S {W})? (cont’d) Thus, we can replace pre-conditions with ones that are stronger, and post-conditions with ones that are weaker. Note that if A  B, we say that A is stronger than B, or equivalently, that B is weaker than A.

Practice quiz question… In general, which would be the better marketing strategy for increasing your software sales…advertising the software as having a strong pre-condition and a weak post-condition, or vice-versa? Give a concrete example which illustrates your answer.

Reasoning about Sequencing Suppose that we know {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} and we know {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1 {X[I-1]=J-1}.

Reasoning about Sequencing Suppose that we know {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} and we know {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1 {X[I-1]=J-1}.

Reasoning about Sequencing Suppose that we know {X[I]=J} I := I+1 {X[I-1]=J} and we know {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1 {X[I-1]=J-1}. Then it follows that {X[I]=J} I := I +1 {X[I-1]=J} J := J+1 {X[I-1]=J-1}

Reasoning about Sequencing (cont’d) In general: if you know {P} S1 {R} and you know {R} S2 {Q} then you know {P} S1; S2 {Q}.

Example 1 Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3}

Example 1 Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2;

Example 1 Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7}

Example 1 Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7} C := B-A;

Example 1 Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7} C := B-A; {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2}

Example 1 Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7} C := B-A; {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2} D := A-C

Example 1 Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7} C := B-A; {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2} D := A-C {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2 Л D=3}

Example 1 ? Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7} C := B-A; {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2} D := A-C {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2 Л D=3} ?

Example 1 ? Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7} C := B-A; {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2} D := A-C {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2 Л D=3}  {A=5 Л D=3} ?

Example 1  Prove the assertion: {A=5} B := A+2; C := B-A; D := A-C {A=5 Л D=3} {A=5} B := A+2; {A=5 Л B=7} C := B-A; {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2} D := A-C {A=5 Л B=7 Л C=2 Л D=3}  {A=5 Л D=3} 

Reasoning about If_then_else Statements Consider the assertion: {P} if b then S1 else S2 {Q} What are the necessary conditions for this assertion to hold?

Necessary Conditions: If_then_else {P} T F b S1 S2 {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then_else {P} {P Л b } S1 {Q} T F b S1 S2 {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then_else {P} {P Л b } S1 {Q} T F b S1 S2 {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then_else {P} {P Л b } S1 {Q} T F b S1 S2 {P Л b} S2 {Q} {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then_else {P} {P Л b } S1 {Q} T F b “and” or “or” S1 S2 {P Л b} S2 {Q} {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then_else {P} {P Л b } S1 {Q} T F b and S1 S2 {P Л b} S2 {Q} {Q}

Reasoning about If_then Statements Consider the assertion: {P} if b then S {Q} What are the necessary conditions for this assertion to hold?

Necessary Conditions: If_then {P} T b F S {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then {P} {P Л b } S {Q} T b F S {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then {P} {P Л b } S {Q} T b and F S {Q}

Necessary Conditions: If_then {P} {P Л b } S {Q} T b and F S (P Л b)  Q {Q}

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)}

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)} P b S Q

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)} (1) {P Л b } S {Q}: (2) (P Л b)  Q: P b S Q

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)} (1) {P Л b } S {Q}: {Z=B Л A>B} Z := A { ? } (2) (P Л b)  Q: P b S Q

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)} (1) {P Л b } S {Q}: {Z=B Л A>B} Z := A {Z=A Л A>B} (2) (P Л b)  Q: P b S Q

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)} (1) {P Л b } S {Q}:  {Z=B Л A>B} Z := A {Z=A Л A>B}  Q (2) (P Л b)  Q: P b S Q

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)} (1) {P Л b } S {Q}:  {Z=B Л A>B} Z := A {Z=A Л A>B}  Q (2) (P Л b)  Q: (Z=B Л AB)  ? P b S Q

Example 2 Prove the assertion: {Z=B} if A>B then Z := A {Z=Max(A,B)} (1) {P Л b } S {Q}:  {Z=B Л A>B} Z := A {Z=A Л A>B}  Q (2) (P Л b)  Q:  (Z=B Л AB)  Q P b S Q

Proof Rules Before proceeding to while loops, let’s capture our previous reasoning about sequencing, selection statements, and state condition replacement in appropriate rules of inference (ROI). ROI for Sequencing: {P} S1 {R}, {R} S2 {Q} {P} S1; S2 {Q} (cont'd)

Proof Rules (cont’d) ROI for if_then_else statement: {P Л b } S1 {Q}, {P Л b} S2 {Q} {P} if b then S1 else S2 {Q} ROI for if_then statement: {P Л b } S {Q}, (P Л b)  Q {P} if b then S {Q} (cont'd)

Proof Rules (cont’d) ROI for State Condition Replacement†: K  P, {P} S {Q}, Q  W {K} S {W} † Also known as the consequence rule.

Coming Up Next… Reasoning about iteration (while loops) Strong correctness and proving termination

Axiomatic Verification I Software Testing and Verification Lecture 17 Prepared by Stephen M. Thebaut, Ph.D. University of Florida