Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
Iris
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package Registry
Model registry
Operate
Terraform modules
Monitor
Service Desk
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Terms and privacy
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Gaëtan Gilbert
Iris
Commits
ccf8bc36
Commit
ccf8bc36
authored
5 years ago
by
Ralf Jung
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
editing
parent
e85a1027
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
docs/ghost-state.tex
+23
-25
23 additions, 25 deletions
docs/ghost-state.tex
with
23 additions
and
25 deletions
docs/ghost-state.tex
+
23
−
25
View file @
ccf8bc36
...
...
@@ -57,31 +57,7 @@ Persistence is preserved by conjunction, disjunction, separating conjunction as
One of the troubles of working in a step-indexed logic is the ``later'' modality
$
\later
$
.
It turns out that we can somewhat mitigate this trouble by working below the following
\emph
{
except-0
}
modality:
\[
\diamond
\prop
\eqdef
\later\FALSE
\lor
\prop
\]
This modality is useful because there is a class of propositions which we call
\emph
{
timeless
}
propositions, for which we have
\[
\timeless
{
\prop
}
\eqdef
\later\prop
\proves
\diamond\prop
\]
In other words, when working below the except-0 modality, we can
\emph
{
strip
away
}
the later from timeless propositions. In fact, we can strip away later
from timeless propositions even when working under the later modality:
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH
{
later-timeless-strip
}{
\timeless
{
\prop
}
\and
\prop
\proves
\later
\propB
}
{
\later\prop
\proves
\later\propB
}
\end{mathpar}
This rule looks different from the above ones, because we still do not have that
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH
{
later-fake-rule
}{
\timeless
{
\prop
}}
{
\later\prop
\proves
\prop
}
\end{mathpar}
The proof of the former is
$
\later
\prop
\proves
\diamond
\prop
=
\later\FALSE
\lor
\prop
$
, and then by straightforward disjunction elimination:
% Cut the second part if trivial.
\begin{mathpar}
\infer
{
\later\FALSE
\proves
\later
\propB
\and
\prop
\proves
\later
\propB
}
{
\later\FALSE
\lor
\prop
\proves
\propB
}
\end{mathpar}
The following rules can be derived about except-0:
Except-0 satisfies the usual laws of a ``monadic'' modality (similar to,
\eg
the update modalities):
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH
{
ex0-mono
}
{
\prop
\proves
\propB
}
...
...
@@ -106,6 +82,28 @@ The following rules can be derived about except-0:
\diamond\later\prop
&
\proves
&
\later
{
\prop
}
\end{array}
\end{mathpar}
In particular, from
\ruleref
{
ex0-mono
}
and
\ruleref
{
ex0-idem
}
we can derive a ``bind''-like elimination rule:
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH
{
ex0-elim
}
{
\prop
\proves
\diamond\propB
}
{
\diamond\prop
\proves
\diamond\propB
}
\end{mathpar}
This modality is useful because there is a class of propositions which we call
\emph
{
timeless
}
propositions, for which we have
\[
\timeless
{
\prop
}
\eqdef
\later\prop
\proves
\diamond\prop
\]
In other words, when working below the except-0 modality, we can
\emph
{
strip
away
}
the later from timeless propositions (using
\ruleref
{
ex0-elim
}
):
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH
{
ex0-timeless-strip
}{
\timeless
{
\prop
}
\and
\prop
\proves
\diamond\propB
}
{
\later\prop
\proves
\diamond\propB
}
\end{mathpar}
In fact, it turns out that we can strip away later from timeless propositions even when working under the later modality:
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH
{
later-timeless-strip
}{
\timeless
{
\prop
}
\and
\prop
\proves
\later
\propB
}
{
\later\prop
\proves
\later\propB
}
\end{mathpar}
This follows from
$
\later
\prop
\proves
\later\FALSE
\lor
\prop
$
, and then by straightforward disjunction elimination.
The following rules identify the class of timeless propositions:
\begin{mathparpagebreakable}
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment