Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mechanizing formal methods: Opportunities and challenges

  • Proof
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
ZUM '95: The Z Formal Specification Notation (ZUM 1995)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 967))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Mechanization makes it feasible to calculate properties of formally specified systems. This ability creates new opportunities for using formal methods as an exploratory tool in system design. Achieving enough efficiency to make this practical raises challenging problems in automated deduction. These challenges can be met only by approaches that integrate consideration of its mechanization into the design of a specification language.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. S. Boyer and J S. Moore. Integrating decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers: A case study with linear arithmetic. In Machine Intelligence, volume 11. Oxford University Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alonzo Church. Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Volume 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1956. (Volume 2 never appeared).

    Google Scholar 

  3. David L. Dill, Andreas J. Drexler, Alan J. Hu, and C. Han Yang. Protocol verification as a hardware design aid. In 1992 IEEE International Conference on Computer Design: VLSI in Computers and Processors, pages 522–525. IEEE Computer Society, 1992. Cambridge, MA, October 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  4. L. Lamport and P. M. Melliar-Smith. Synchronizing clocks in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM, 32(1):52–78, January 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):382–401, July 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Patrick Lincoln and John Rushby. A formally verified algorithm for interactive consistency under a hybrid fault model. In Fault Tolerant Computing Symposium 23, pages 402–411, Toulouse, France, June 1993. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Patrick Lincoln and John Rushby. Formal verification of an interactive consistency algorithm for the Draper FTP architecture under a hybrid fault model. In COMPASS '94 (Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Computer Assurance), pages 107–120, Gaithersburg, MD, June 1994. IEEE Washington Section.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Robyn R. Lutz. Analyzing software requirements errors in safety-critical embedded systems. In IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pages 126–133, San Diego, CA, January 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sam Owre, John Rushby, Natarajan Shankar, and Friedrich von Henke. Formal verification for fault-tolerant architectures: Prolegomena to the design of PVS. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(2): 107–125, February 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Rajan, N. Shankar, and M.K. Srivas. An integration of model-checking with automated proof checking. In Pierre Wolper, editor, Computer-Aided Verification, CAV '95, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Liege, Belgium, June 1995. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  11. John Rushby. A fault-masking and transient-recovery model for digital flight-control systems. In Jan Vytopil, editor, Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, chapter 5, pages 109–136. Kluwer, Boston, Dordecht, London, 1993. An earlier version appeared in Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, volume 571 of Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 237–257, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, January 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  12. John Rushby. A formally verified algorithm for clock synchronization under a hybrid fault model. In Thirteenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 304–313, Los Angeles, CA, August 1994. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  13. John Rushby and Friedrich von Henke. Formal verification of algorithms for critical systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(1): 13–23, January 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robert E. Shostak. An algorithm for reasoning about equality. Communications of the ACM, 21(7):583–585, July 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Robert E. Shostak. Deciding combinations of theories. Journal of the ACM, 31(1): 1–12, January 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, 94025, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    John Rushby

Authors
  1. John Rushby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Jonathan P. Bowen Michael G. Hinchey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rushby, J. (1995). Mechanizing formal methods: Opportunities and challenges. In: Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G. (eds) ZUM '95: The Z Formal Specification Notation. ZUM 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 967. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60271-2_115

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60271-2_115

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60271-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44782-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation