src/HOL/UNITY/README.html
author webertj
Sun Nov 14 01:40:27 2004 +0100 (2004-11-14)
changeset 15283 f21466450330
parent 11193 851c90b23a9e
child 15582 7219facb3fd0
permissions -rw-r--r--
DOCTYPE declaration added
webertj@15283
     1
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
webertj@15283
     2
paulson@4776
     3
<!-- $Id$ -->
paulson@4776
     4
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>HOL/UNITY/README</TITLE></HEAD><BODY>
paulson@4776
     5
paulson@4776
     6
<H2>UNITY--Chandy and Misra's UNITY formalism</H2>
paulson@4776
     7
paulson@4776
     8
<P>The book <EM>Parallel Program Design: A Foundation</EM> by Chandy and Misra
paulson@5679
     9
(Addison-Wesley, 1988) presents the UNITY formalism.  UNITY consists of an
paulson@5679
    10
abstract programming language of guarded assignments and a calculus for
paulson@5679
    11
reasoning about such programs.  Misra's 1994 paper "A Logic for Concurrent
paulson@5679
    12
Programming" presents New UNITY, giving more elegant foundations for a more
paulson@5679
    13
general class of languages.  In recent work, Chandy and Sanders have proposed
paulson@5679
    14
new methods for reasoning about systems composed of many components.
paulson@4776
    15
paulson@5679
    16
<P>This directory formalizes these new ideas for UNITY.  The Isabelle examples
paulson@5679
    17
may seem strange to UNITY traditionalists.  Hand UNITY proofs tend to be
paulson@5679
    18
written in the forwards direction, as in informal mathematics, while Isabelle
paulson@5679
    19
works best in a backwards (goal-directed) style.  Programs are expressed as
paulson@5679
    20
sets of commands, where each command is a relation on states.  Quantification
paulson@5679
    21
over commands using [] is easily expressed.  At present, there are no examples
paulson@5679
    22
of quantification using ||.
paulson@4776
    23
paulson@5679
    24
<P>A UNITY assertion denotes the set of programs satisfying it, as
paulson@5679
    25
in the propositions-as-types paradigm.  The resulting style is readable if
paulson@5679
    26
unconventional.
paulson@4776
    27
paulson@4776
    28
<P> Safety proofs (invariants) are often proved automatically.  Progress
paulson@4776
    29
proofs involving ENSURES can sometimes be proved automatically.  The
paulson@4776
    30
level of automation appears to be about the same as in HOL-UNITY by Flemming
paulson@4776
    31
Andersen et al.
paulson@4776
    32
paulson@11193
    33
<P>
paulson@11193
    34
The directory <A HREF="Simple/"><CODE>Simple</CODE></A>
paulson@11193
    35
presents a few examples, mostly taken from Misra's 1994
paulson@11193
    36
paper, involving single programs.
paulson@11193
    37
The directory <A HREF="Comp/"><CODE>Comp</CODE></A>
paulson@11193
    38
presents examples of proofs involving program composition.
paulson@11193
    39
paulson@4776
    40
<HR>
paulson@4776
    41
<P>Last modified on $Date$
paulson@4776
    42
paulson@4776
    43
<ADDRESS>
paulson@4776
    44
<A NAME="lcp@cl.cam.ac.uk" HREF="mailto:lcp@cl.cam.ac.uk">lcp@cl.cam.ac.uk</A>
paulson@4776
    45
</ADDRESS>
paulson@4776
    46
</BODY></HTML>