pasv VS dafny

Then you go to the more elaborate prover. We used the Boyer-Moore prover for that. After proving a implies b, that became a theorem/rule the fast prover could use when it matched. So if the same situation came up again in code, the rule would be re-used automatically.

I notice that the examples for this verified Rust system don't seem to include a termination check for loops. You prove that loops terminate by demonstrating that some nonnegative integer expression decreases on each iteration and never goes negative. If you can't prove that easily, the code has no place in mission-critical code.

Microsoft's F* is probably the biggest success in this area.[3]

[1] https://archive.org/details/manualzilla-id-5928072/page/n3/m...

[2] https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv

[3] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/video/programming-w...

This is a generic problem with macro systems, of course, which is why C deliberately had a weak macro system.

LISP is a blast from the path. It's fun for retro reasons, but things have moved on.

[1] https://github.com/John-Nagle/nqthm

[2] https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv/tree/master/src/CPC4

> In the 70's, this wasn't considered a 'real' proof.

I ran into that decades ago. We used the original Boyer-Moore theorem prover [1] as part of a program verification system. The system had two provers, the Nelson-Oppen simplifier (the first SAT solver) to automatically handle the easy proofs, and the Boyer-Moore system for the hard ones. To make sure that both had consistent theories, I used the Boyer-Moore prover to prove the "axioms" of the Nelson-Oppen system, especially what are usually called McCarthy's axioms (the ones that use Select and Store) for arrays.

The Boyer-Moore system uses a strictly constructive approach to mathematics. It starts from something like Peano arithmetic (there is a number zero, and an operation add 1) and builds up number theory. So I added a concept of arrays, represented as (index, value) tuples in sorted order, and was able to prove the usual "axioms" for arrays as theorems.

The machine proofs were long and involved much case analysis.[2] I submitted a paper to JACM in the early 1980s and got back reviews saying that it was just too long and inelegant to be at the fundamentals of computer science. That might not be the case today.

A few years back, I put the Boyer-Moore prover on Github, after getting it to work with Gnu Common LISP. So you can still run all this 1980s stuff. It's much faster today. It took about 45 minutes to grind through these proofs on a VAX 11/780 in the early 1980s. Now it takes about a second.

The proof log [2] is amusing. It's building up number theory from a very low level, starting by proving that X + 0 = X. Each theorem proved can be used as a lemma by later theorems, so you guide the process by giving it problems to solve in the right order. By line 1900, it's proving that multiplication distributes over addition. Array theory, the new stuff, starts around line 2994.

The reason this is so complicated and ugly is that there's no use of axiomatic set theory. Arrays are easy if you have sets. But there are no sets here. Sets don't fit well into this strict constructive theory, because EQUAL means identical. You can't create weaker definitions of equality which say that two sets are equal if they contain the same elements regardless of order, because that introduces a risk of unsoundness. Effort must be put into keeping the tuples of the array representation in ascending order by subscript, which implies much case analysis. Mathematicians hate case analysis. Computers are good at it.

[1] https://github.com/John-Nagle/nqthm

[2] https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv/blob/master/src/work/temp...

behave as if it does. The other extreme would be a GUI program.

[1] http://www.animats.com/papers/verifier/verifiermanual.pdf

[2] https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv

which proves that the storing operation always produces a validly ordered array. That's essentially a code proof of correctness for a recursive function The Boyer-Moore prover was able to grind out a proof of that without help. That was a long proof, too.

I submitted this to JACM. It was rejected, mostly for uglyness. The concept that you needed all this heavy machine-driven case analysis to prove a nice simple "axiom" upset mathematicians. Today it would be less of an issue. People are now more used to proofs that take a lot of grinding through cases.

You could build up set theory this way, via ordered lists, if you wanted.

So that's a classic of what happens if you take "equal" seriously.

[1] http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/towards.pdf

[2] https://theory.stanford.edu/~arbrad/papers/arrays.pdf

[3] https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv/blob/master/src/work/temp...

[4] https://github.com/John-Nagle/nqthm

For those that are interested but perhaps not aware in this similar project, Dafny is a "verification-aware programming language" that can compile to rust: https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny

Code correctness is a lost art. I requirement to think in abstractions is what scares a lot of devs to avoid it. The higher abstraction language (formal specs) focus on a dedicated language to describe code, whereas lower abstractions (code contracts) basically replace validation logic with a better model.

C# once had Code Contracts[1]; a simple yet powerful way to make formal specifications. The contracts was checked at compile time using the Z3 SMT solver[2]. It was unfortunately deprecated after a few years[3] and once removed from the .NET Runtime it was declared dead.

The closest thing C# now have is probably Dafny[4] while the C# dev guys still try to figure out how to implement it directly in the language[5].

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/code-contra...

[2] https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/CodeContracts

[4] https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny

[5] https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/105

I don't think something that specific exists. There are a very large number of formal methods tools, each with different specialties / domains.

For verification with proof assistants, [Software Foundations](https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/) and [Concrete Semantics](http://concrete-semantics.org/) are both solid.

For verification via model checking, you can check out [Learn TLA+](https://learntla.com/), and the more theoretical [Specifying Systems](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/book-02-08-08.pdf).

For more theory, check out [Formal Reasoning About Programs](http://adam.chlipala.net/frap/).

And for general projects look at [F*](https://www.fstar-lang.org/) and [Dafny](https://dafny.org/).

Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs; they're more useful to guide an implementation in a more practical functional language but then the proof is separated from the implementation, and you could also use tools like TLA+.

https://dafny.org/

https://whiley.org/

https://www.idris-lang.org/

https://isabelle.in.tum.de/

https://leanprover.github.io/

https://coq.inria.fr/

http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

> I think we can assume it won't be as efficient has hand written code

Actually, surprisingly, not necessarily the case!

If you'll refer to the discussion in https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny/issues/601 and in https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny/issues/547, Dafny can statically prove that certain compiler branches are not possible and will never be taken (such as out-of-bounds on index access, logical assumptions about whether a value is greater than or less than some other value, etc). This lets you code in the assumptions (__assume in C++ or unreachable_unchecked() under rust) that will allow the compiler to optimize the codegen using this information.