Abstract
Usually we teach formal methods relying for a large part on one kind of reasoning technique about a formal model. For instance, we either use formal proof or we use model-checking. It would appear that it is already hard enough to learn one technique and having to cope with two puts just another burden on the students. This is not our experience. Especially model-checking is easily used to complement formal proof. It only relies on an intuitive operational understanding of a formal model.
In this article we show how using model-checking, animation, and formal proof together can be used to improve understanding of formal models. We demonstrate how animation can help finding an explanation for a failing proof. We also demonstrate where animation or model-checking may not help and where proving may not help. For most part use of another tool pays off. Proof obligations present intentionally a static view of a system so that we focus on abstract properties of a model and not on its behaviour. By contrast model-checking provides a more dynamic view based on an operational interpretation. Both views are valuable aids to reasoning about a model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abrial, J.-R. (ed.): The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. CUP, Cambridge (1996)
Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008) (to appear)
Abrial, J.-R., Butler, M., Hallerstede, S., Voisin, L.: An open extensible tool environment for Event-B. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) ICFEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4260, pp. 588–605. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Abrial, J.-R., Hallerstede, S.: Refinement, Decomposition and Instantiation of Discrete Models: Application to Event-B. Fundamentae Informatica 77(1-2) (2007)
Eclipse platform homepage, http://www.eclipse.org/
Hallerstede, S.: How to make mistakes. In: TFM B (to appear, 2009)
Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: A model checker for B. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 855–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: Automatic refinement checking for B. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 345–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Leuschel, M., Butler, M.J.: ProB: an automated analysis toolset for the B method. STTT 10(2), 185–203 (2008)
Leuschel, M., Turner, E.: Visualizing larger states spaces in ProB. In: Treharne, H., King, S., Henson, M.C., Schneider, S. (eds.) ZB 2005. LNCS, vol. 3455, pp. 6–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Morgan, C.C. (ed.): Programming from Specifications, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1994)
Schneider, S.: The B-Method: An Introduction. Palgrave, Oxford (2002)
Servat, T.: BRAMA: A new graphic animation tool for B models. In: Julliand, J., Kouchnarenko, O. (eds.) B 2007. LNCS, vol. 4355, pp. 274–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Spermann, C., Leuschel, M.: ProB gets nauty: Effective symmetry reduction for B and Z models. In: Proceedings Symposium TASE 2008, Nanjing, China, June 2008, pp. 15–22. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hallerstede, S., Leuschel, M. (2009). How to Explain Mistakes. In: Gibbons, J., Oliveira, J.N. (eds) Teaching Formal Methods. TFM 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5846. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04912-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04912-5_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04911-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04912-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)