Skip to main content

Verifying Intuition — ILF Checks DAWN Proofs

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1999 (ICATPN 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1639))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract p ]The DAWN approach allows to model and verify distributed algorithms in an intuitive way. At a first glance, a DAWN proof may appear to be informal. In this paper, we argue that DAWN proofs are formal and can be checked for correctness fully automatically by automated theorem provers. The basic technique are proof rules which generate proof obligations. For the definition of the proof rules we adopt assertions and we introduce conflict formulas for algebraic Petri nets. Experiments show that the generated proof obligations can be automatically checked by theorem provers.

The DAWN approach allows to model and verify distributed algorithms in an intuitive way. At a first glance, a DAWN proof may appear to be informal. In this paper, we argue that DAWN proofs are formal and can be checked for correctness fully automatically by automated theorem provers. The basic technique are proof rules which generate proof obligations. For the definition of the proof rules we adopt assertions and we introduce conflict formulas for algebraic Petri nets. Experiments show that the generated proof obligations can be automatically checked by theorem provers.

supported by DFG: Project ‘Deduktion für Fremdnutzer’ within the’ schwerpunktprogramm Deduktion’

supported by DFG: Projects ‘Petri Net Technology’ and ‘Datenkonsistenzkriterien’

supported by DFG: Project’ Konsensalgorithmen’

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. T. Baar, B. Fischer, and D. Fuchs. Integrating Deductional Techniques in a Software Reuse Application. In: Journal of Universal Computer Science 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. T. Baar, E. Kindler, H. Völzer. Verifying Intuition — ILF checks DAWN proofs. Informatik-Bericht 119, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, March 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. Baumgartner and U. Furbach. Protein: A prover with a theory extension interface. In Proc. CADE-12, pp. 769–773. Springer, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. Best and C. Fernández. Nonsequential Processes, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science 13. Springer-Verlag, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. M. Chandy and J. Misra. Parallel Program Design: A Foundation. Addison-Wesley, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Cousot. Methods and logics for proving programs. In J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Semantics, pp. 841–993. Elsevier, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. B. I. Dahn and J. Denzinger. Cooperating theorem provers. In Automated Deduction — A Basis for Applications, Volume 2, pp. 383–416. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. I. Dahn, J. Gehne, T. Honigmann, and A. Wolf. Integration of automated and interactive theorem proving in Ilf. In Proc. CADE-14, pp. 55–60. Springer, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Desel and E. Kindler. Proving correctness of distributed algorithms using highlevel Petri nets — a case study. In Proc. CSD 1998, pp. 177–186, Fukushima, Japan, Mar. 1998. IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. C. Goller, R. Letz, K. Mayr, and J. Schumann. SETHEO V3.2: Recent developments (system abstract). In CADE-12, pp. 778–782. Springer, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. Hoare. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 12(10):576–583, Oct. 1969.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. E. Kindler and W. Reisig. Verification of distributed algorithms with algebraic Petri nets. In C. Freksa, M. Jantzen, and R. Valk (eds.), Foundations of Computer Science: Potential — Theory — Cognition, LNCS 1337, pp. 261–270. Springer, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E. Kindler, W. Reisig, H. Völzer, and R. Walter. Petri net based verification of distributed algorithms: An example. Formal Aspects of Comp., 9:409–424, 1997.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. E. Kindler and H. Völzer. Flexibility in algebraic nets. In J. Desel and M. Silva (eds.), Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1998, 19 th International Conference, LNCS 1420, pp. 345–364. Springer-Verlag, June 1998.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. L. Lamport. The temporal logic of actions. SRC Research Report 79, Digital Equipment Corporation, Systems Research Center, Dec. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. How to cook a temporal proof system for your pet language. In 10 th Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, Jan. 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems —; Specification. Springer-Verlag, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. A temporal proof methodology for reactive systems. In M. Broy (ed.), Program Design Calculi, Springer, pp. 287–323, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  19. W. McCune. OTTER 2.0: Recent developments (system abstract). In Proc. CADE-10, pp. 663–664. Springer, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  20. S. Owicki and L. Lamport. Proving liveness properties of concurrent programs. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst., 4(3):455–495, July 1982.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. W. Reisig. Elements of Distributed Algorithms—; Modeling and Analysis with Petri Nets. Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  22. W. Reisig, E. Kindler, T. Vesper, H. Völzer, and R. Walter. Distributed algorithms for networks of agents. In W. Reisig and G. Rozenberg (eds.), Lectures on Petri Nets II: Applications, LNCS 1492, pp. 331–385. Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  23. S. Unger. Automatisches Überprüfen von DAWN-Beweisen. Diploma thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, April 1999, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. Weber, R. Walter, H. Völzer, T. Vesper, W. Reisig, S. Peuker, E. Kindler, J. Freiheit, and J. Desel. DAWN: Petrinetzmodelle zur Verifikation Verteilter Algorithmen. Informatik-Bericht 88, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Dec. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Weidenbach, B. Gaede, and G. Rock. Spass & Flotter, version 0.42. In CADE-13, pp. 141–145. Springer, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Baar, T., Kindler, E., Völzer, H. (1999). Verifying Intuition — ILF Checks DAWN Proofs. In: Donatelli, S., Kleijn, J. (eds) Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1999. ICATPN 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1639. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48745-X_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48745-X_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66132-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48745-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics