
diff -r f51d4a302962 -r 5386df44a037 src/Doc/Tutorial/CTL/Base.thy
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/Doc/Tutorial/CTL/Base.thy	Tue Aug 28 18:57:32 2012 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+(*<*)theory Base imports Main begin(*>*)
+
+section{*Case Study: Verified Model Checking*}
+
+text{*\label{sec:VMC}
+This chapter ends with a case study concerning model checking for 
+Computation Tree Logic (CTL), a temporal logic.
+Model checking is a popular technique for the verification of finite
+state systems (implementations) with respect to temporal logic formulae
+(specifications) \cite{ClarkeGP-book,Huth-Ryan-book}. Its foundations are set theoretic
+and this section will explore them in HOL\@. This is done in two steps.  First
+we consider a simple modal logic called propositional dynamic
+logic (PDL)\@.  We then proceed to the temporal logic CTL, which is
+used in many real
+model checkers. In each case we give both a traditional semantics (@{text \<Turnstile>}) and a
+recursive function @{term mc} that maps a formula into the set of all states of
+the system where the formula is valid. If the system has a finite number of
+states, @{term mc} is directly executable: it is a model checker, albeit an
+inefficient one. The main proof obligation is to show that the semantics
+and the model checker agree.
+
+\underscoreon
+
+Our models are \emph{transition systems}:\index{transition systems}
+sets of \emph{states} with
+transitions between them.  Here is a simple example:
+\begin{center}
+\unitlength.5mm
+\thicklines
+\begin{picture}(100,60)
+\put(50,50){\circle{20}}
+\put(50,50){\makebox(0,0){$p,q$}}
+\put(61,55){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$s_0$}}
+\put(44,42){\vector(-1,-1){26}}
+\put(16,18){\vector(1,1){26}}
+\put(57,43){\vector(1,-1){26}}
+\put(10,10){\circle{20}}
+\put(10,10){\makebox(0,0){$q,r$}}
+\put(-1,15){\makebox(0,0)[r]{$s_1$}}
+\put(20,10){\vector(1,0){60}}
+\put(90,10){\circle{20}}
+\put(90,10){\makebox(0,0){$r$}}
+\put(98, 5){\line(1,0){10}}
+\put(108, 5){\line(0,1){10}}
+\put(108,15){\vector(-1,0){10}}
+\put(91,21){\makebox(0,0)[bl]{$s_2$}}
+\end{picture}
+\end{center}
+Each state has a unique name or number ($s_0,s_1,s_2$), and in each state
+certain \emph{atomic propositions} ($p,q,r$) hold.  The aim of temporal logic
+is to formalize statements such as ``there is no path starting from $s_2$
+leading to a state where $p$ or $q$ holds,'' which is true, and ``on all paths
+starting from $s_0$, $q$ always holds,'' which is false.
+
+Abstracting from this concrete example, we assume there is a type of
+states:
+*}
+
+typedecl state
+
+text{*\noindent
+Command \commdx{typedecl} merely declares a new type but without
+defining it (see \S\ref{sec:typedecl}). Thus we know nothing
+about the type other than its existence. That is exactly what we need
+because @{typ state} really is an implicit parameter of our model.  Of
+course it would have been more generic to make @{typ state} a type
+parameter of everything but declaring @{typ state} globally as above
+reduces clutter.  Similarly we declare an arbitrary but fixed
+transition system, i.e.\ a relation between states:
+*}
+
+consts M :: "(state \<times> state)set";
+
+text{*\noindent
+This is Isabelle's way of declaring a constant without defining it.
+Finally we introduce a type of atomic propositions
+*}
+
+typedecl "atom"
+
+text{*\noindent
+and a \emph{labelling function}
+*}
+
+consts L :: "state \<Rightarrow> atom set"
+
+text{*\noindent
+telling us which atomic propositions are true in each state.
+*}
+
+(*<*)end(*>*)




