Algorithmic logic: Różnice pomiędzy wersjami
Linia 59: | Linia 59: | ||
</small> | </small> | ||
----------------- | ----------------- | ||
− | A piece of cake? Not so easy. You are not allowed to explain how the program is executed. Instead you are limited to use these declarations and | + | A piece of cake? Not so easy. Your answer should be written in the format close to a formal proof. It means, it should be easy to verify the correctness of your proof in an automated way. Therefore, the proof should be a sequence of steps. You are not allowed to explain how the program is executed, no hsnds waving. Instead you are limited to use these declarations and some inference rules and axioms. |
Wersja z 22:19, 7 sty 2015
Algorithmic logic is a logical calculus. More than this it is also a calculus of programs.
We begin with an example ot its usefulness.
Are you ready?
A challenge (presented by Pawel Susicki)
Given the piece of software [math] \mathrm{Nic}[/math] consisting of a class Node and two functions insert and contains (see below) prove or disprove the following formula
- [math] \mathrm{Nic} \vdash \forall_{n_0 \in Node} \forall_{k \in Key}\,[\textbf{call } insert(n_0,k)]contains(n_0,k) [/math]
- [math] \mathrm{Nic} \vdash \forall_{n_0 \in Node} \forall_{k \in Key}\,[\textbf{call } insert(n_0,k)]contains(n_0,k) [/math]
i.e. it is a logical consequence of admitting declarations of class Node and functions insert and contains, that for every object [math]n_0 [/math], and for every element [math]k [/math] of type [math]Key [/math], after execution of command [math]insert(n_),k) [/math] holds [math]contains(n_0,k) [/math].
The listing of Nic follows:
class Node { Node l,r; Key k; Node( Key _k ) : k(_k) {} } void insert( Node n, Key k ) { loop { if( k < n.k ) if( n.l ) n := n.l; else { n.l := new Node( k ); return; } else if( n.k < k ) if( n.r ) n := n.r; else { n.r := new Node( k ); return; } else return; } } bool contains( Node n, Key k ) { while( n ) { if( k < n.k ) n := n.l; else if( n.k < k ) n := n.r; else return true; } return false; }
A piece of cake? Not so easy. Your answer should be written in the format close to a formal proof. It means, it should be easy to verify the correctness of your proof in an automated way. Therefore, the proof should be a sequence of steps. You are not allowed to explain how the program is executed, no hsnds waving. Instead you are limited to use these declarations and some inference rules and axioms.