Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Its Applications: 8th International Workshop Aspen Grove, UT, USA, September 11–14, 1995 Proceedings

409 Pages·1995·5.769 MB·English

by  Otmane Aït Mohamed (auth.), E. Thomas Schubert, Philip J. Windley, James Alves-Foss (eds.)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science 971
Edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis and J. van Leeuwen
Advisory Board: W. Brauer D. Gries J. Stoer
E. Thomas Schubert Phillip J. Windley
James Alves-Foss ).sdE(
Higher redrO Logic
Theorem Proving
dna stI Applications
ht8 International Workshop
Aspen Grove, ,TU USA
September 11-14, 1995
Proceedings
r e g ~ n i r p S
Series Editors
Gerhard Goos, Karlsruhe University, Germany
Juris Hartmanis, Cornell University, ,YN USA
Jan van Leeuwen, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Volume Editors
E. Thomas Schubert
Department of Computer Science, CMPS, Portland State University
P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA
Phillip J. Windley
Department of Computer Science,TMCB 3370, Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602-6576, USA
James Alves-Foss
Department of Computer Science, University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844-1010, USA
Cataloging-in-Publication data applied for
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Higher order logic theorem proving and its applications : ...
international workshop ; proceedings. - Berlin ; Heidelberg ;
New York ; London ; Paris ; Tokyo ; Hong Kong ; Barcelona ;
Budapest : Springer.
8. Aspen Grove, UT, USA, September 11 - 14, 1995. - 1995
(Lecture notes in computer science ; Vol. )179
ISBN 3-540-60275-5 (Berlin ...)
NE: GT
CR Subject Classification (1991): F.4.1, 1.2.2-3, B.6.3, B.7.2, D.2.2, D.4.6,
F.3.1
ISBN 3-540-60275-5 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965,
in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are
liable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
(cid:14)9 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995
Printed in Germany
Typesetting: Camera-ready by author
SPIN 10485472 06/3142 - 5 4 3 2 1 0 Printed on acid-free paper
Preface
This volume is the proceedings of the international workshop on Higher Order
Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, held at Aspen Grove, Utah, USA
during September 11-14, 1995. The workshop is the eighth in a series of annual
meetings that brings together researchers and practitioners to explore issues re-
lated to higher order logic theorem proving technology and the use of higher
order logic as a basis for formal methods reasoning. Though the original focus of
the workshop was the HOL theorem proving system, the scope has since broad-
ened to include the development and use of other higher order logic mechanized
theorem provers. Each of the thirty-five papers submitted this year was fully
refereed by at least three reviewers selected by the program committee. The
program committee accepted twenty-six papers for presentation and publication
in the proceedings.
The papers selected fall into three general categories: representation of for-
malisms in higher order logic; applications of mechanized higher order logic; and
enhancements to the HOL and other theorem proving systems. Papers in the
first category discuss embedding a variety of formalisms in higher order logic,
including ZF set theory, graph theory, TLA, pi-calculus, and VHDL.
Papers in the second category describe applications of higher order logic.
Several papers describe hardware verification efforts, including pipeline verifica-
tion, multiprocessor memory protocol verification, and formal circuit synthesis.
Other papers discuss floating point verification, cryptographic protocol analysis,
and reasoning about distributed programming languages.
The final category concerns higher order logic theorem proving infrastruc-
ture. Topics covered by papers in this area include proof methods, decision pro-
cedures, proof engineering support, user interface tools, definition mechanisms,
transformation techniques, and proof checking.
The conference continued its tradition of providing an open venue for the
discussion and sharing of preliminary results. Eight researchers were invited to
present their work during an informal poster session. The workshop was spon-
sored by the Departments of Computer Science at Brigham Young University,
Portland State University, and the University of Idaho. The conference orga-
nizers would also like to thank Paul Black, Kelly Hall, Michael Jones, Rosina
Bignall, Trent Larson, and Robert Beers, all of whom helped ensure a successful
conference.
More information about future conferences and the HOL system can be found
on the World Wide Web at http ://lal. cs. byu/lal/hol-documentat ion. html.
September, 1995 Tom Schubert
Phil Windley
Jim Alves-Foss
IV
Conference Organization
Workshop Chair Program Chair
Dr. Phillip Windley Dr. Thomas Schubert
Dept. of Computer Science TMCB 0733 Dept. of Computer Science
Brigham Young University P.O. Box 157
Provo, Utah 84602-6576 Portland State University
e-maih windley@cs, byu, edu Portland, Oregon 1570-70279
e-mail: schubert@cs, pdx. edu
Special Sessions Chair
Dr. Jim Alves-Foss
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 0101-44838
e-maih j (cid:127) uidaho, edu
Program Committee
Jim Alves-Foss (Idaho) Tim Leonard (DEC)
Flemming Andersen (TDR) Karl Levitt (UC Davis)
Richard Boulton (Cambridge) Paul Loewenstein (SUN)
Albert Camilleri (HP) Tom Melham (Glasgow)
Shui-Kai Chin (Syracuse) Tom Schubert (Portland State)
Elsa Gunter (AT&T) David Shepherd (SGS-THOMSON)
John Herbert (SRI) Joakim yon Wright (/~bo Akademi)
Ramayya Kumar (FZI) Phil Windley (BYU)
Miriam Leeser (Cornell)
Additional Reviewers
Brian R. Becker, A. Rosina Bignall, Paul E. Black, Michael Butler, Surekha
Ghantasala, Jim Grundy, Kelly M. Hall, John Harrison, Mark Heckman, Shahid
Ikram, Michael Jones, Jang Dae Kim, Thomas L&ngbacka, Munna, John O'Leary,
Stacey Son, Donald Syme, Wai Wong, Cui Zhang
Contents
Mechanizing a z-Calculus Equivalence within HOL
O~mane Ai't Mohamed ...................................................... 1
Non-Primitive Recursive Function Definitions
Sten Agerholm ............................................................. 17
Experiments with ZF Set Theory in HOL and Isabelle
Sten Agerholm and Mike Gordon .......................................... 23
Automatically Synthesized Term Denotation Predicates: A Proof Aid
Paul E. Black and PhiUip J. Windley ...................................... 46
On the Refinement of Symmetric Memory Protocols
J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali .............................................. 85
Combining Decision Procedures in the HOL System
Richard J. Boulton ........................................................ 75
Deciding Cryptographic Protocol Adequacy with HOL
Stephen H. Brackin ....................................................... 09
A Practical Method for Reasoning About Distributed Systems in a
Theorem Prover
Holger Busch ............................................................ 601
A Theory of Finite Maps
Graham Collins and Donald Syme ...................................... .. 221
Virtual Theories
Paul Curzon ............................................................. 831
An Automata Theory Dedicated Towards Formal Circuit Synthesis
Dirk Eisenbiegler and Ramayya Kumar ................................... 451
Interfacing HOL90 with a Functional Database Query Language
Elsa L. Gunter and Leonid Libkin ........................................ 071
Floating Point Verification in HOL
John Harrison ........................................................... 681
IIIV
Inductive Definitions: Automation and Application
John Harrison ........................................................... 002
A Formulation of TLA in Isabelle
Sara Kalvala ............................................................. 214
Formal Verification of Serial Pipeline Multipliers
Jang Dae Kim and Shiu-Kai Chin ........................................ 922
TkWinHOL: A Tool for Window Inference in HOL
Thomas Ldngbaeka, Rimvydas RukY~nas and Joakim yon Wrigh~ .......... 542
Formal Verification of Counterflow Pipeline Architecture
Paul N. I, oewenstein ..................................................... 162
Deep Embedding VHDL
Ralf Reetz ................................................................ 277
HOLCF: Higher Order Logic of Computable Functions
Franz Regensburger ...................................................... 392
A Mechanized Logic for Secure Key Escrow Protocol Verification
Tom Schubert and Sarah Mocaa .......................................... 803
A New Interface for HOL - Ideas, Issues and Implementation
Donald Syme ............................................................ 423
Very Efficient Conversions
Morten Welinder ......................................................... 043
Recording and Checking HOL Proofs
Wai Wong ....................................... ~ ....................... 353
Formalization of Planar Graphs
Mitsuharu Yamamoto, Shin-ya Nishizahi, Masami Hagiya,
and Yozo Toda ........................................................... 963
A Hierarchical Method for Reasoning About Distributed Programming
Languages
Cui, Zhang, Brian R. Becket, Mark R. Heckman, Karl Levitt,
and Ron A. Olsson ....................................................... 583
Mechanizing a '-calculus equivalence in HOL
Otmane AIT MOHAMED*
CRIN-CNRS & INRIA-Lorraine, BP 239, Vandoeuvre-l~s-Nancy Cedex, France
Abstract. The z-calculus is a relatively simple framework in which the
semantics of dynamic creation and transmission of channels can be de-
scribed nicely. In this paper we consider the issue of verifying mechan-
ically the equivalence of 7r-terms in the context of bisimulation based
semantics while relying on the general purpose theorem prover ttOL.
Our main contribution is the presentation of a proof method to check
early equivalence between ~r-terms. The method is based on 7r-terms
rewriting and an operational definition of bisimulation. The soundness
of the rewriting steps relies on standard algebraic laws which are for-
mally proved in HOL. The resulting method is implemented in HOL ~a
an automatic tactic.
1 Introduction
The r-calculus 12 is an extension of CCS 10 based on the idea that processes
can communicate channel names. This possibility dramatically increases the ex-
pressive power of the calculus, for instance it allows one to model networks with
a dynamically changing topology 14, and reasonable encodings of the A-calculus
and of higher-order process calculi have been proposed 11, 2, 15.
This paper reports on work concerning the mechanical verification of equiva-
lence between co-terms in the context of bisimulation based semantics within the
general purpose theorem prover I-IOL. This work is based on the one described
in 3, and is constructed on top of our mechanization of the ~r-caleulus theory
in the HOL system I.
The embedding of the ~r-calculus in LOI=I is inspired by previous works on
the mechanization of process algebra in HOL, namely, the mechanization of
CSP by Camilleri 6, the mechanization of CCS by Nesi 13, and, recently, the
mechanization of the ~r-calculus by Melham 9.
Our general goal is two fold: firstly, we want to develop formally the theory of
the ~'-calculus and secondly, we want to apply this framework to the verification
of applications specified in the ~'-calculus.
In the proof construction process it is of the utmost importance to have
tactics that carry out simple parts of the proof automatically. In particular
our goal here is to define a tactic that can solve automatically the equivalence
problem for finite terms (a term is said to be finite if it contains only finite
summations, and no recursion). More precisely, the main contribution of this
* emaih amohamed~loria.fr
paper is to describe a method of checking early equivalence between finite -tI
terms, and its implementation in ttOL (the method can be applied to general
1r-terms as well but in this case termination is not guaranteed). This method is
composed of two basic parts:
* In the first part a r-term is rewritten into a prefixed form where it is possible
to read directly one of its next actions (if any). More precisely, a process P is
said to be in a prefixed form if it is Nil, or it is in one of the two forms: cr.P
or cr + Q, where Nil is the terminated process, Lo is a suitable prefix, and
+ is the non-deterministic sum. The rewriting rules are obtained by forcing
a suitable orientation of basic algebraic laws of the 7r-calculus, typically we
apply a suitable form of the expansion theorem and a certain number of
rules concerning the commutation of restriction with the other operators.
Since the algebraic laws have been formally derived in our HOL's formali-
sation of the r-calculus 1 we are able to derive easily the soundness of the
rewriting process. Let us anticipate that, in order to represent certain inter-
mediate states of the computation we employ a few new operators. These
auxiliary operators give an equational characterization of parallel composi-
tion. They were introduced for the first time by Bergstra and Klop in their
finite axiomatization of strong bisimulation equivalence over ACP ,4 5. This
in turn leads to transformational proof techniques for showing that a pro-
cess implementation meets its specification. These operators are introduced
in ttOL's 7r-calculus theory by following the definitional principle, in order to
ensure the consistency of this extension. Related algebraic laws are derived
formally and applied to the rewriting process.
* In the second part two prefixed forms are compared according to a suit-
able set of rules. These rules are based on the definition of the bisimulation
relation. Their soundness is shown within the HOL system.
In general, our tactic alternates the computation of prefixed forms (part 1)
and their comparison according to the rules of bisimulation (part 2).
The structure of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we give a brief presenta-
tion of the ~r-calculus: its syntax, its semantics and the definition of the strong
early equivalence. In section 3 we recall some aspects of the formalisation of the
r-calculus in ttOL. In section 4 we give the definition of our proof method, fol-
lowed by its representation in the ttOL system. We conclude with some remarks
and some directions for future work.
2 It-calculus
In this section, we present the syntax and the semantic of the 1r-calculus, as
well as the definition of the strong early equivalence. For further details on these
topics we refer to 12.
The syntax of the ~r-calculus is given by the following BNF grammar:
P ::= Nil I X I a.P I ~ = YP I (vc)P I (P + P) (P I P) I Rec X P
c(~)
,:, ::= l~d I r
Where Nil is the inactive process, c(x).P is a process that receives an arbi-
trary channel d at c and then it behaves like Pd/x. -dd.P sends the channel d
along c and then behaves like P. v.P performs a silent action "7 and then behaves
like P. The process x = yP behaves like P if z and y are identical, and oth-
erwise like Nil. 1P + 2P represents nondeterministic choice. 1P I 2P represents
two processes acting in parallel with the possibility of communication. The term
(vc)P behaves like P except that the channel c is local to P. The actions at
channels c are prohibited (but communication between components of P along
the channel c are not). The process Rec X P specifies a process that has a recur-
sive behaviour. We abbreviate the process (vd)'dd, P by -d(d).P, i.e, the process
that sends a new local channel to its environment.
The definitions of free and bound names are standard. (In c(x).P and in (vx)P
the variable x is bound). We denote by Fn(P) and Fn(a) the teS of free names
of P and a and by Bn(P) and Bn(a) the set of bound names of P and .~o N(P)
and N(a) denote the set of names occurring in P and ~. We shall identify two
processes that differ only by their bound names. A substitution "o maps channel
names to channel names. We denote by "oP the process obtained by replacing
by -ox each free occurrence of a variable x in P. The operational semantics of
the calculus is given via a labelled transition system, which is displayed in Fig.
.1 We have omitted the symmetric versions of the rules suml, par1, corn1 and
closel.
nd ,~ ~ Fn(,,=)P ~ c(~).P ~ P~l*
out ~ -~d.P --~ P
tan ~ r.P +5_- p
match P +2- P' ~ c = cP +2- P'
parl P ~ P' ABn(c~)nFn(Q)=O ~= PQ--2+ P'Q
suml p +.2_ p' ~= p + Q +.2- p'
rec PRecX P/X %-- P' ~= RecX P %-- P'
~mo~ P ~ P' ^ Q -'~ Q' ~ P I Q ~ P'd/w I Q'
close1 p ~_K p, ^ Q ~ Q, ~ P I Q -~ (vw)(P' I Q')
nu P +-2-- p' A c ~ N(~) ~ (vc)P ~ > (vc)P'
nepo P --~ P' ^ d (cid:127) c A w ~ Fn((vc)P) ~:: (vc)P d('~ P'w/c
Pig. 1. It-calculus transition system