Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Leslie Lamport

Publications and source records attributed to Leslie Lamport.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2022

Mathematical Proof Between Generations

A proof is one of the most important concepts of mathematics. However, there is a striking difference between how a proof is defined in theory and how it is used in practice. This puts the unique status of mathematics as exact science into peril. Now may be the time to reconcile theory and practice, i.e. precision and intuition, through the advent of computer proof assistants. For the most time this has been a topic for experts in specialized communities. However, mathematical proofs have become increasingly sophisticated, stretching the boundaries of what is humanly comprehensible, so that leading mathematicians have asked for formal verification of their proofs. At the same time, major theorems in mathematics have recently been computer-verified by people from outside of these communities, even by beginning students. This article investigates the gap between the different definitions of a proof and possibilities to build bridges. It is written as a polemic or a collage by different members of the communities in mathematics and computer science at different stages of their careers, challenging well-known preconceptions and exploring new perspectives.

math.HO↗
arXiv2019

The TLA+ Toolbox

We discuss the workflows supported by the TLA+ Toolbox to write and verify specifications. We focus on features that are useful in industry because its users are primarily engineers. Two features are novel in the scope of formal IDEs: CloudTLC connects the Toolbox with cloud computing to scale up model checking. A Profiler helps to debug inefficient expressions and to pinpoint the source of state space explosion. For those who wish to contribute to the Toolbox or learn from its flaws, we present its technical architecture.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2017

Auxiliary Variables in TLA+

Auxiliary variables are often needed for verifying that an implementation is correct with respect to a higher-level specification. They augment the formal description of the implementation without changing its semantics--that is, the set of behaviors that it describes. This paper explains rules for adding history, prophecy, and stuttering variables to TLA+ specifications, ensuring that the augmented specification is equivalent to the original one. The rules are explained with toy examples, and they are used to verify the correctness of a simplified version of a snapshot algorithm due to Afek et al.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2017

On the Glitch Phenomenon

The Principle of the Glitch states that for any device which makes a discrete decision based upon a continuous range of possible inputs, there are inputs for which it will take arbitrarily long to reach a decision. The appropriate mathematical setting for studying this principle is described. This involves defining the concept of continuity for mappings on sets of functions. It can then be shown that the glitch principle follows from the continuous behavior of the device.

cs.IT↗
arXiv2012

TLA+ Proofs

TLA+ is a specification language based on standard set theory and temporal logic that has constructs for hierarchical proofs. We describe how to write TLA+ proofs and check them with TLAPS, the TLA+ Proof System. We use Peterson's mutual exclusion algorithm as a simple example to describe the features of TLAPS and show how it and the Toolbox (an IDE for TLA+) help users to manage large, complex proofs.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2010

Verifying Safety Properties With the TLA+ Proof System

TLAPS, the TLA+ proof system, is a platform for the development and mechanical verification of TLA+ proofs written in a declarative style requiring little background beyond elementary mathematics. The language supports hierarchical and non-linear proof construction and verification, and it is independent of any verification tool or strategy. A Proof Manager uses backend verifiers such as theorem provers, proof assistants, SMT solvers, and decision procedures to check TLA+ proofs. This paper documents the first public release of TLAPS, distributed with a BSD-like license. It handles almost all the non-temporal part of TLA+ as well as the temporal reasoning needed to prove standard safety properties, in particular invariance and step simulation, but not liveness properties.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2008

A TLA+ Proof System

We describe an extension to the TLA+ specification language with constructs for writing proofs and a proof environment, called the Proof Manager (PM), to checks those proofs. The language and the PM support the incremental development and checking of hierarchically structured proofs. The PM translates a proof into a set of independent proof obligations and calls upon a collection of back-end provers to verify them. Different provers can be used to verify different obligations. The currently supported back-ends are the tableau prover Zenon and Isabelle/TLA+, an axiomatisation of TLA+ in Isabelle/Pure. The proof obligations for a complete TLA+ proof can also be used to certify the theorem in Isabelle/TLA+.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2004

Consensus on Transaction Commit

The distributed transaction commit problem requires reaching agreement on whether a transaction is committed or aborted. The classic Two-Phase Commit protocol blocks if the coordinator fails. Fault-tolerant consensus algorithms also reach agreement, but do not block whenever any majority of the processes are working. Running a Paxos consensus algorithm on the commit/abort decision of each participant yields a transaction commit protocol that uses 2F +1 coordinators and makes progress if at least F +1 of them are working. In the fault-free case, this algorithm requires one extra message delay but has the same stable-storage write delay as Two-Phase Commit. The classic Two-Phase Commit algorithm is obtained as the special F = 0 case of the general Paxos Commit algorithm.

cs.DC↗