Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching Formal Methods for Fun Using Maude

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Formal Methods – Fun for Everybody (FMFun 2019)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1301))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper I try to identify some general criteria for teaching an undergraduate formal methods course in a “fun” way. Based on those criteria, I have developed an introductory formal methods course using rewriting logic and Maude. I explain why Maude is a suitable formal method for such a course, give an overview of the course and its textbook, and summarize student feedback to the course.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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 EPUB and 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since the bachelor degree is only offered in Norwegian, this course plan is unfortunately only available in Norwegian.

  2. 2.

    Oddly enough, the formal methods course is placed last in its slot, which is sorted neither by course code nor alphabetically.

  3. 3.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/11/amazon-beats-apple-and-google-to-become-the-worlds-most-valuable-brand.html.

  4. 4.

    More precisely, they are equivalence classes of terms modulo the equations in the equational specification.

  5. 5.

    ‘[]’ and ‘ ’ denote the temporal operators \(\Box \) and \(\Diamond \), respectively, and ‘/\ and ‘->’ denote logical conjunction and implication.

  6. 6.

    This general question did not appear in the evaluation form the first couple of years.

  7. 7.

    Coincidentally, my son’s teacher recommended me to use their Maude product to teach my son mathematics during the home schooling caused by the corona virus.

  8. 8.

    See https://fme-teaching.github.io/courses/ for a list of formal methods courses.

References

  1. Aceto, L., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Larsen, K.G., Srba, J.: Teaching concurrency: theory in practice. In: Gibbons, J., Oliveira, J.N. (eds.) TFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5846, pp. 158–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04912-5_11

  2. Agha, G.A., Meseguer, J., Sen, K.: PMaude: rewrite-based specification language for probabilistic object systems. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 153(2), 213–239 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. AlTurki, M., Meseguer, J.: PVeStA: a parallel statistical model checking and quantitative analysis tool. In: Corradini, A., Klin, B., Cîrstea, C. (eds.) CALCO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6859, pp. 386–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22944-2_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Anastasio, T.J.: Computer modeling in neuroscience: from imperative to declarative programming: Maude modeling in neuroscience. In: Martí-Oliet, N., Ölveczky, P.C., Talcott, C. (eds.) Logic, Rewriting, and Concurrency. LNCS, vol. 9200, pp. 97–113. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23165-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bentea, L., Ölveczky, P.C., Bentea, E.: Using probabilistic strategies to formalize and compare \(\alpha \)-synuclein aggregation and propagation under different scenarios. In: Gupta, A., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CMSB 2013. LNCS, vol. 8130, pp. 92–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40708-6_8

  6. Bobba, R., et al.: Survivability: design, formal modeling, and validation of cloud storage systems using Maude. In: Assured Cloud Computing, chap. 2, pp. 10–48. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bogdănaş, D., Roşu, G.: K-Java: a complete semantics of Java. In: Proceedings of POPL 2015. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Broccia, G., Milazzo, P., Ölveczky, P.C.: Formal modeling and analysis of safety-critical human multitasking. Innovations Syst. Softw. Eng. 15(3–4), 169–190 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruni, R., Meseguer, J.: Semantic foundations for generalized rewrite theories. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 360(1–3), 386–414 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Cerone, A., Roggenbach, M., Schlingloff, H., Schneider, G., Shaikh, S.: Teaching formal methods for software engineering - ten principles. In: Proceedings of Fun With Formal Methods (a CAV 2013 Workshop) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cerone, A.: A cognitive framework based on rewriting logic for the analysis of interactive systems. In: De Nicola, R., Kühn, E. (eds.) SEFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9763, pp. 287–303. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41591-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clavel, M., et al.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71999-1

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Clavel, M., et al.: Maude Manual (Version 3.0) (2020). http://maude.cs.illinois.edu

  15. Curzon, P., McOwan, P.W.: Teaching formal methods using magic tricks (2013). Paper presented at the Workshop “Fun with formal methods” at CAV 2013

    Google Scholar 

  16. Durán, F., et al.: Programming and symbolic computation in Maude. J. Log. Algebr. Meth. Program. 110, 100497 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ellison, C., Rosu, G.: An executable formal semantics of C with applications. In: Proceedings of POPL 2012. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grov, J., Ölveczky, P.C.: Formal modeling and analysis of Google’s Megastore in Real-Time Maude. In: Iida, S., Meseguer, J., Ogata, K. (eds.) Specification, Algebra, and Software. LNCS, vol. 8373, pp. 494–519. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54624-2_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Grov, J., Ölveczky, P.C.: Increasing consistency in multi-site data stores: Megastore-CGC and its formal analysis. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Salaün, G. (eds.) SEFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8702, pp. 159–174. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10431-7_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Kasampalis, T., et al.: IELE: a rigorously designed language and tool ecosystem for the blockchain. In: ter Beek, M.H., McIver, A., Oliveira, J.N. (eds.) FM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11800, pp. 593–610. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Katelman, M., Meseguer, J., Hou, J.: Redesign of the LMST wireless sensor protocol through formal modeling and statistical model checking. In: Barthe, G., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) FMOODS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 150–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68863-1_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Krings, S., Körner, P.: Prototyping games using formal methods. In: Proceedings of FMfun 2019. CCIS, Springer, pp. 124–142 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lien, E., Ölveczky, P.C.: Formal modeling and analysis of an IETF multicast protocol. In: Proceedings of SEFM 2009. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liu, S., Takahashi, K., Hayashi, T., Nakayama, T.: Teaching formal methods in the context of software engineering. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41(2), 17–23 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu, S., Ganhotra, J., Rahman, M.R., Nguyen, S., Gupta, I., Meseguer, J.: Quantitative analysis of consistency in NoSQL key-value stores. LITES 4(1), 03:1–03:26 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Liu, S., Sandur, A., Meseguer, J., Ölveczky, P.C., Wang, Q.: Generating correct-by-construction distributed implementations from formal Maude designs. In: Lee, R., Jha, S., Mavridou, A., Giannakopoulou, D. (eds.) NFM 2020. LNCS, vol. 12229, pp. 22–40. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55754-6_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theor. Comput. Sci. 96, 73–155 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Meseguer, J.: Membership algebra as a logical framework for equational specification. In: Presicce, F.P. (ed.) WADT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1376, pp. 18–61. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64299-4_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Meseguer, J., Rosu, G.: The rewriting logic semantics project. Theor. Comput. Sci. 373(3), 213–237 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Meseguer, J.: Twenty years of rewriting logic. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program 81(7–8), 721–781 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Meseguer, J., Roşu, G.: The rewriting logic semantics project: a progress report. Inf. Comput. 231, 38–69 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Meseguer, J., Sasse, R., Wang, H.J., Wang, Y.: A systematic approach to uncover security flaws in GUI logic. In: 2007 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P 2007). IEEE Computer Society (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Moller, F., O’Reilly, L., Powell, S.: Teaching them early: formal methods in school. In: Proceedings of FMfun 2019. CCIS, Springer, pp. 173–190 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Newcombe, C., Rath, T., Zhang, F., Munteanu, B., Brooker, M., Deardeuff, M.: How Amazon Web Services uses formal methods. Commun. ACM 58(4), 66–73 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ölveczky, P.C.: Real-Time Maude and its applications. In: Escobar, S. (ed.) WRLA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8663, pp. 42–79. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12904-4_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Ölveczky, P.C., Meseguer, J.: Specification of real-time and hybrid systems in rewriting logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 285, 359–405 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Ölveczky, P.C., Meseguer, J.: Semantics and pragmatics of Real-Time Maude. High. Order Symb. Comput. 20(1–2), 161–196 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ölveczky, P.C., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.L.: Specification and analysis of the AER/NCA active network protocol suite in Real-Time Maude. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 29(3), 253–293 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ölveczky, P.C., Thorvaldsen, S.: Formal modeling, performance estimation, and model checking of wireless sensor network algorithms in Real-Time Maude. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410(2–3), 254–280 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Ölveczky, P.C.: Design and validation of cloud storage systems using formal methods. In: Mousavi, M.R., Sgall, J. (eds.) TTCS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10608, pp. 3–8. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68953-1_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Ölveczky, P.C.: Designing Reliable Distributed Systems: A Formal Methods Approach Based on Executable Modeling in Maude. Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science. Springer, London (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6687-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Park, D., Zhang, Y., Saxena, M., Daian, P., Roşu, G.: A formal verification tool for Ethereum VM bytecode. In: Proceedings of ESEC/FSE 2018, pp. 912–915. ACM (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rocha, C., Cadavid, H., Muñoz, C., Siminiceanu, R.: A formal interactive verification environment for the Plan Execution Interchange Language. In: Derrick, J., Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Treharne, H. (eds.) IFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7321, pp. 343–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30729-4_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Rocha, C., Meseguer, J.: Proving safety properties of rewrite theories. In: Corradini, A., Klin, B., Cîrstea, C. (eds.) CALCO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6859, pp. 314–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22944-2_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Roşu, G.: Matching logic. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 13(4), 1–61 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Roşu, G., Şerbănuţă, T.F.: An overview of the K semantic framework. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 79(6), 397–434 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Rushby, J.: Mechanized formal methods: progress and prospects. In: Chandru, V., Vinay, V. (eds.) FSTTCS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1180, pp. 43–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62034-6_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Rushby, J.M.: New challenges in certification for aircraft software. In: Proceedings of EMSOFT 2011. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schlingloff, H.: Teaching model checking via games and puzzles. In: Proceedings of FMfun 2019. CCIS, Springer, pp. 143–158 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sebastio, S., Vandin, A.: Multivesta: statistical model checking for discrete event simulators. In: ValueTools, pp. 310–315. ICST/ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Skeirik, S., Stefanescu, A., Meseguer, J.: A constructor-based reachability logic for rewrite theories. In: Fioravanti, F., Gallagher, J.P. (eds.) LOPSTR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10855, pp. 201–217. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94460-9_12

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Spichkova, M., Zamansky, A.: Teaching of formal methods for software engineering. In: Proceedings of ENASE 2016. SciTePress (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Talcott, C.L.: The Pathway Logic formal modeling system: diverse views of a formal representation of signal transduction. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, BIBM 2016. IEEE Computer Society (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wing, J.M.: Weaving formal methods into the undergraduate computer science curriculum (extended abstract). In: Rus, T. (ed.) AMAST 2000. LNCS, vol. 1816, pp. 2–7. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45499-3_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Antonio Cerone and Markus Roggenbach for inviting me to give a talk at FMfun 2019, and for patiently waiting for this paper to be finished.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Peter Csaba Ölveczky

Authors
  1. Peter Csaba Ölveczky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Csaba Ölveczky .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

    Antonio Cerone

  2. Swansea University, Swansea, UK

    Markus Roggenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ölveczky, P.C. (2021). Teaching Formal Methods for Fun Using Maude. In: Cerone, A., Roggenbach, M. (eds) Formal Methods – Fun for Everybody. FMFun 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1301. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71374-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71374-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71373-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71374-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation