Proof Obligations Sample Clauses

Proof Obligations. For a combination of a flow and machine we would like to be able to demonstrate that the flow is consistent or concrete (the latter requires the former). The general strategy is split an overall proof into a collection of simpler conditions. For flow consistency, a suitable way to do this is to analyse each instance of sequential composition individually as suggested by the condition of Theorem 1 (see Definition 6 for oper- ator cons). For an instance of a sequential composition, from Definition 5 we have the following feasibility condition for a composed event. I(v) G(p, v) vj (S(p, v, vj); ( q H(q, v) R(q, v, vj))) v1 (S(p, v, v1) q H(q, v1) R(q, v1, vj))) The condition is far too complex in the current form. A more compact one could be found. Let us first assume that the composed events are feasible on their own. This gives the following two axioms. axm1 : I(v) G(p, v) vj S(p, v, vj) axm2 : I(v) H(q, v) vj R(q, v, vj) Applying axiom axm1, the feasibility condition for a composed event is simplified to the following: I(v) ∧ G(p, v) ∧ S(p, v, v1) € ∃ q · H(q, v1) ∧ R(q, v1, vj) With the help of the second axiom we are able to remove R(q, v1, vj) clause from the goal: I(v) ∧ G(p, v) ∧ S(p, v, v1) € ∃ q · H(q, v1) Finally, extending the above with the consideration of model constants and sets, the follow- ing proof obligation is formulated. P(c, s) ∧ I(c, s, v) ∧ G(c, s, pe, v) ∧ S(c, s, pe, v, vj) € H(c, s, q, v) Here G and S are the guard and before-after predicate (actions) of what is possibly a result of merging several model events. The proof obligation demonstrates that an event characterised by G and S is able to pass control to another (possibly merged) event with guard H for any possible state permitted by G. The axioms we have rely upon are sound since they are a part of model consistency proof obligations that are to be discharge for every Event-B model[3]. With a similar procedure we are able to find a practical form of a proof obligation for demon- strating that a flow is concrete. The following proof obligation requires that for a given instance p; q of a sequential composition the choice branches in q, if there any, are mutually exclusive. . j j(H (c s q v ) H (c s q v )) P(c, s) ∧ I(c, s, v) ∧ G(c, s, p, v) ∧ S(c, s, p, v, vj) € {s,t}∈EN(q)∧sƒ=t ¬ s , , s, ∧ t , , t , Here Hs and Ht are the guards of possibly merged events. The goal in this proof obligation may become lengthy in some extreme case when there is a choice on a large number of e...
View SourceView Similar (2)
Proof Obligations. In the second application (start/stop system) we started not with a requirement set, we developed the needed requirements by ourselves. We did not produce a comparable chart to the one for the cruise control system. In the second pilot we were more interested in gathering evidence that the proof obligations, which arise using Event-B, are manageable.
View Source
Proof Obligations. Compatible Parallel Composition
View Source

Related to Proof Obligations

  • Payment of Obligations Pay, discharge or otherwise satisfy at or before maturity or before they become delinquent, as the case may be, all its material obligations of whatever nature, except where the amount or validity thereof is currently being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and reserves in conformity with GAAP with respect thereto have been provided on the books of the relevant Group Member.

  • Repayment of Obligations Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Borrower shall repay the Advances Outstanding, all accrued and unpaid Yield, any Breakage Fees, Increased Costs, all accrued and unpaid costs and expenses of the Administrative Agent and Lenders and all other Obligations (other than unmatured contingent indemnification obligations) in full on the Facility Maturity Date.

  • Payment and Performance of Obligations Pay and perform all material Obligations under this Agreement and the other Loan Documents, and pay or perform (a) all taxes, assessments and other governmental charges that may be levied or assessed upon it or any of its property, and (b) all other indebtedness, obligations and liabilities in accordance with customary trade practices; except to the extent that IPT or the Borrower is contesting any item described in clauses (a) or (b) of this Section 7.5 in good faith and is maintaining adequate reserves with respect thereto in accordance with GAAP.

  • Reinstatement of Obligations If at any time all or any part of any payment made by Indemnitor or received by Lender from Indemnitor under or with respect to this Agreement is or must be rescinded or returned for any reason whatsoever (including, but not limited to, the insolvency, bankruptcy or reorganization of Indemnitor or Borrower), then the obligations of Indemnitor hereunder shall, to the extent of the payment rescinded or returned, be deemed to have continued in existence, notwithstanding such previous payment made by Indemnitor, or receipt of payment by Lender, and the obligations of Indemnitor hereunder shall continue to be effective or be reinstated, as the case may be, as to such payment, all as though such previous payment by Indemnitor had never been made.

  • Priority of Obligations The Company will ensure that its payment obligations under this Agreement and the Notes will at all times rank at least pari passu, without preference or priority, with all other unsecured and unsubordinated Indebtedness of the Company.