You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Possibly incorrect lemma in example-archive (src/example-archive/simple-examples/working/list_2.c) #111
Hi, I was just going through the snippets in the example archive looking, and I realised that it might be the case that one of the lemmas assumed in one is incorrect?
In particular, shouldn't v.next be constrained to not be equal to any of the next-fields inside the list segment? (because if so, then it forms a loop and the segment would be cut off early?).
Discovered this while playing around and trying to prove this lemma in CN directly with the following encoding:
Oh, I'm realising that maybe it's in example-archive because it's been archived? tentatively closing this issue accordingly, and saw that a more correct encoding was already implemented in src/examples/queue/pop_unified.c
IntListSeq is exclusive in its second argument (does not take ownership of that pointer), and so the lemma as stated should be fine. Cycles would be ruled out by the fact that Owned(p) * Owned(q) => p != q.
Activity
kiranandcode commentedon Jan 27, 2025
Oh, I'm realising that maybe it's in example-archive because it's been archived? tentatively closing this issue accordingly, and saw that a more correct encoding was already implemented in src/examples/queue/pop_unified.c
dc-mak commentedon Mar 12, 2025
IntListSeq is exclusive in its second argument (does not take ownership of that pointer), and so the lemma as stated should be fine. Cycles would be ruled out by the fact that Owned(p) * Owned(q) => p != q.
cp526 commentedon Mar 12, 2025
(see previous discussion in mattermost)
dc-mak commentedon Mar 12, 2025
Can you post a link or summarise the discussion for future readers?
cp526 commentedon Mar 12, 2025
(project-internal link)
https://mattermost.galois.com/verse-ta1-ta2/pl/489kc5988jgef88upaqqq3ydso
dc-mak commentedon Mar 14, 2025
I think this is the correct form of the lemma?
https://github.com/rems-project/cn-tutorial/blob/main/src/examples/queue/push_induction.c