diff --git a/docs/algebra.tex b/docs/algebra.tex
index 7bfc5d4d6615abdc10396c13d08af2fc9748b88b..3295ade48b2e28050a976a3cbe9061587b77d659 100644
--- a/docs/algebra.tex
+++ b/docs/algebra.tex
@@ -78,10 +78,10 @@ where the $n$-equivalence at the bottom is meant to apply to the pairs of elemen
In other words, extension carries the decomposition of $\meltB$ into $\meltB_1$ and $\meltB_2$ over the $n$-equivalence of $\melt$ and $\meltB$, and yields a corresponding decomposition of $\melt$ into $\melt_1$ and $\melt_2$.
This operation is needed to prove that $\later$ commutes with existential quantification and separating conjunction:
\begin{mathpar}
- \axiom{\later(\Exists\var:\sort. \prop) \Lra \Exists\var:\sort. \later\prop}
+ \axiom{\later(\Exists\var:\type. \prop) \Lra \Exists\var:\type. \later\prop}
\and\axiom{\later (\prop * \propB) \Lra \later\prop * \later\propB}
\end{mathpar}
-(This assumes that the sort $\sort$ is non-empty.)
+(This assumes that the type $\type$ is non-empty.)
%%% Local Variables:
diff --git a/docs/derived.tex b/docs/derived.tex
index b907e7dea6b510cf9bf7273a270e0bcd2c618f32..1953032d07abd07d343f26e1e6006cfce3e6b0ab 100644
--- a/docs/derived.tex
+++ b/docs/derived.tex
@@ -1,3 +1,277 @@
+\section{Derived Program logic}\label{sec:proglog}
+
+Hoare triples and view shifts are syntactic sugar for weakest (liberal) preconditions and primitive view shifts, respectively:
+\[
+\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask] \eqdef \always{(\prop \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\lambda\Ret\val.\propB}{\mask})}
+\qquad\qquad
+\begin{aligned}
+\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB &\eqdef \always{(\prop \Ra \pvsA{\propB}{\mask_1}{\mask_2})} \\
+\prop \vsE[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB &\eqdef \prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB \land \propB \vs[\mask2][\mask_1] \prop
+\end{aligned}
+\]
+We write just one mask for a view shift when $\mask_1 = \mask_2$.
+The convention for omitted masks is generous:
+An omitted $\mask$ is $\top$ for Hoare triples and $\emptyset$ for view shifts.
+
+% PDS: We're repeating ourselves. We gave Γ conventions and we're about to give Θ conventions. Also, the scope of "Below" is unclear.
+% Below, we implicitly assume the same context for all judgements which don't have an explicit context at \emph{all} pre-conditions \emph{and} the conclusion.
+
+Henceforward, we implicitly assume a proof context, $\pfctx$, is added to every constituent of the rules.
+Generally, this is an arbitrary proof context.
+We write $\provesalways$ to denote judgments that can only be extended with a boxed proof context.
+
+\ralf{Give the actual base rules from the Coq development instead}
+
+\subsection{Hoare triples}
+\begin{mathpar}
+\inferH{Ret}
+ {}
+ {\hoare{\TRUE}{\valB}{\Ret\val. \val = \valB}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferH{Bind}
+ {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \\
+ \All \val. \hoare{\propB}{K[\val]}{\Ret\valB.\propC}[\mask]}
+ {\hoare{\prop}{K[\expr]}{\Ret\valB.\propC}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferH{Csq}
+ {\prop \vs \prop' \\
+ \hoare{\prop'}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB'}[\mask] \\
+ \All \val. \propB' \vs \propB}
+ {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferH{Frame}
+ {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]}
+ {\hoare{\prop * \propC}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB * \propC}[\mask \uplus \mask']}
+\and
+\inferH{AFrame}
+ {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \and \text{$\expr$ not a value}
+ }
+ {\hoare{\prop * \later\propC}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB * \propC}[\mask \uplus \mask']}
+% \and
+% \inferH{Fork}
+% {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\any. \TRUE}[\top]}
+% {\hoare{\later\prop * \later\propB}{\fork{\expr}}{\Ret\val. \val = \textsf{fRet} \land \propB}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferH{ACsq}
+ {\prop \vs[\mask \uplus \mask'][\mask] \prop' \\
+ \hoare{\prop'}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB'}[\mask] \\
+ \All\val. \propB' \vs[\mask][\mask \uplus \mask'] \propB \\
+ \physatomic{\expr}
+ }
+ {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask \uplus \mask']}
+\end{mathpar}
+
+\subsection{View shifts}
+
+\begin{mathpar}
+\inferH{NewInv}
+ {\infinite(\mask)}
+ {\later{\prop} \vs[\mask] \exists \iname\in\mask.\; \knowInv{\iname}{\prop}}
+\and
+\inferH{FpUpd}
+ {\melt \mupd \meltsB}
+ {\ownGGhost{\melt} \vs \exists \meltB \in \meltsB.\; \ownGGhost{\meltB}}
+\and
+\inferH{VSTrans}
+ {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB \and \propB \vs[\mask_2][\mask_3] \propC \and \mask_2 \subseteq \mask_1 \cup \mask_3}
+ {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_3] \propC}
+\and
+\inferH{VSImp}
+ {\always{(\prop \Ra \propB)}}
+ {\prop \vs[\emptyset] \propB}
+\and
+\inferH{VSFrame}
+ {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB}
+ {\prop * \propC \vs[\mask_1 \uplus \mask'][\mask_2 \uplus \mask'] \propB * \propC}
+\and
+\inferH{VSTimeless}
+ {\timeless{\prop}}
+ {\later \prop \vs \prop}
+\and
+\axiomH{InvOpen}
+ {\knowInv{\iname}{\prop} \proves \TRUE \vs[\{ \iname \} ][\emptyset] \later \prop}
+\and
+\axiomH{InvClose}
+ {\knowInv{\iname}{\prop} \proves \later \prop \vs[\emptyset][\{ \iname \} ] \TRUE }
+\end{mathpar}
+
+\vspace{5pt}
+Note that $\timeless{\prop}$ means that $\prop$ does not depend on the step index.
+Furthermore, $$\melt \mupd \meltsB \eqdef \always{\All \melt_f. \melt \sep \melt_f \Ra \Exists \meltB \in \meltsB. \meltB \sep \melt_f}$$
+
+\subsection{Derived rules}
+
+\paragraph{Derived structural rules.}
+The following are easily derived by unfolding the sugar for Hoare triples and view shifts.
+\begin{mathpar}
+\inferHB{Disj}
+ {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask] \and \hoare{\propB}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
+ {\hoare{\prop \lor \propB}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferHB{VSDisj}
+ {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC \and \propB \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
+ {\prop \lor \propB \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
+\and
+\inferHB{Exist}
+ {\All \var. \hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask]}
+ {\hoare{\Exists \var. \prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferHB{VSExist}
+ {\All \var. (\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB)}
+ {(\Exists \var. \prop) \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB}
+\and
+\inferHB{BoxOut}
+ {\always\propB \provesalways \hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
+ {\hoare{\prop \land \always{\propB}}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferHB{VSBoxOut}
+ {\always\propB \provesalways \prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
+ {\prop \land \always{\propB} \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
+ \and
+\inferH{False}
+ {}
+ {\hoare{\FALSE}{\expr}{\Ret \val. \prop}[\mask]}
+\and
+\inferH{VSFalse}
+ {}
+ {\FALSE \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \prop }
+\end{mathpar}
+The proofs all follow the same pattern, so we only show two of them in detail.
+\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{Exist}]
+ After unfolding the syntactic sugar for Hoare triples and removing the boxes from premise and conclusion, our goal becomes
+ \[
+ (\Exists \var. \prop(\var)) \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propB}{\mask}
+ \]
+ (remember that $\var$ is free in $\prop$) and the premise reads
+ \[
+ \All \var. \prop(\var) \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propB}{\mask}.
+ \]
+ Let $\var$ be given and assume $\prop(\var)$.
+ To show $\dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propB}{\mask}$, apply the premise to $\var$ and $\prop(\var)$.
+
+ For the other direction, assume
+ \[
+ \hoare{\Exists \var. \prop(\var)}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]
+ \]
+ and let $\var$ be given.
+ We have to show $\hoare{\prop(\var)}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]$.
+ This trivially follows from \ruleref{Csq} with $\prop(\var) \Ra \Exists \var. \prop(\var)$.
+\end{proof}
+
+\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{BoxOut}]
+ After unfolding the syntactic sugar for Hoare triples, our goal becomes
+ \begin{equation}\label{eq:boxin:goal}
+ \always\pfctx \proves \always\bigl(\prop\land\always \propB \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask}\bigr)
+ \end{equation}
+ while our premise reads
+ \begin{equation}\label{eq:boxin:as}
+ \always\pfctx, \always\propB \proves \always(\prop \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask})
+ \end{equation}
+ By the introduction rules for $\always$ and implication, it suffices to show
+ \[ (\always\pfctx), \prop,\always \propB \proves \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask} \]
+ By modus ponens and \ruleref{Necessity}, it suffices to show~\eqref{eq:boxin:as}, which is exactly our assumption.
+
+ For the other direction, assume~\eqref{eq:boxin:goal}. We have to show~\eqref{eq:boxin:as}. By \ruleref{AlwaysIntro} and implication introduction, it suffices to show
+ \[ (\always\pfctx), \prop,\always \propB \proves \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask} \]
+ which easily follows from~\eqref{eq:boxin:goal}.
+\end{proof}
+
+\paragraph{Derived rules for invariants.}
+Invariants can be opened around atomic expressions and view shifts.
+
+\begin{mathpar}
+\inferH{Inv}
+ {\hoare{\later{\propC} * \prop }
+ {\expr}
+ {\Ret\val. \later{\propC} * \propB }[\mask]
+ \and \physatomic{\expr}
+ }
+ {\knowInv{\iname}{\propC} \proves \hoare{\prop}
+ {\expr}
+ {\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask \uplus \{ \iname \}]
+ }
+\and
+\inferH{VSInv}
+ {\later{\prop} * \propB \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \later{\prop} * \propC}
+ {\knowInv{\iname}{\prop} \proves \propB \vs[\mask_1 \uplus \{ \iname \}][\mask_2 \uplus \{ \iname \}] \propC}
+\end{mathpar}
+
+\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{Inv}]
+ Use \ruleref{ACsq} with $\mask_1 \eqdef \mask \cup \{\iname\}$, $\mask_2 \eqdef \mask$.
+ The view shifts are obtained by \ruleref{InvOpen} and \ruleref{InvClose} with framing of $\mask$ and $\prop$ or $\propB$, respectively.
+\end{proof}
+
+\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{VSInv}]
+Analogous to the proof of \ruleref{Inv}, using \ruleref{VSTrans} instead of \ruleref{ACsq}.
+\end{proof}
+
+\subsubsection{Unsound rules}
+
+Some rule suggestions (or rather, wishes) keep coming up, which are unsound. We collect them here.
+\begin{mathpar}
+ \infer
+ {P \vs Q}
+ {\later P \vs \later Q}
+ \and
+ \infer
+ {\later(P \vs Q)}
+ {\later P \vs \later Q}
+\end{mathpar}
+
+Of course, the second rule implies the first, so let's focus on that.
+Since implications work under $\later$, from $\later P$ we can get $\later \pvs{Q}$.
+If we now try to prove $\pvs{\later Q}$, we will be unable to establish world satisfaction in the new world:
+We have no choice but to use $\later \pvs{Q}$ at one step index below what we are operating on (because we have it under a $\later$).
+We can easily get world satisfaction for that lower step-index (by downwards-closedness of step-indexed predicates).
+We can, however, not make much use of the world satisfaction that we get out, becaase it is one step-index too low.
+
+\subsection{Adequacy}
+
+The adequacy statement reads as follows:
+\begin{align*}
+ &\All \mask, \expr, \val, \pred, i, \state, \state', \tpool'.
+ \\&( \proves \hoare{\ownPhys\state}{\expr}{x.\; \pred(x)}[\mask]) \implies
+ \\&\cfg{\state}{[i \mapsto \expr]} \step^\ast
+ \cfg{\state'}{[i \mapsto \val] \uplus \tpool'} \implies
+ \\&\pred(\val)
+\end{align*}
+where $\pred$ can mention neither resources nor invariants.
+
+\subsection{Axiom lifting}\label{sec:lifting}
+
+The following lemmas help in proving axioms for a particular language.
+The first applies to expressions with side-effects, and the second to side-effect-free expressions.
+\dave{Update the others, and the example, wrt the new treatment of $\predB$.}
+\begin{align*}
+ &\All \expr, \state, \pred, \prop, \propB, \mask. \\
+ &\textlog{reducible}(e) \implies \\
+ &(\All \expr', \state'. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state'}{\expr'} \implies \pred(\expr', \state')) \implies \\
+ &{} \proves \bigl( (\All \expr', \state'. \pred (\expr', \state') \Ra \hoare{\prop}{\expr'}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]) \Ra \hoare{ \later \prop * \ownPhys{\state} }{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \bigr) \\
+ \quad\\
+ &\All \expr, \pred, \prop, \propB, \mask. \\
+ &\textlog{reducible}(e) \implies \\
+ &(\All \state, \expr_2, \state_2. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \implies \state_2 = \state \land \pred(\expr_2)) \implies \\
+ &{} \proves \bigl( (\All \expr'. \pred(\expr') \Ra \hoare{\prop}{\expr'}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]) \Ra \hoare{\later\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \bigr)
+\end{align*}
+Note that $\pred$ is a meta-logic predicate---it does not depend on any world or resources being owned.
+
+The following specializations cover all cases of a heap-manipulating lambda calculus like $F_{\mu!}$.
+\begin{align*}
+ &\All \expr, \expr', \prop, \propB, \mask. \\
+ &\textlog{reducible}(e) \implies \\
+ &(\All \state, \expr_2, \state_2. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \implies \state_2 = \state \land \expr_2 = \expr') \implies \\
+ &{} \proves (\hoare{\prop}{\expr'}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \Ra \hoare{\later\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] ) \\
+ \quad \\
+ &\All \expr, \state, \pred, \mask. \\
+ &\textlog{atomic}(e) \implies \\
+ &\bigl(\All \expr_2, \state_2. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \implies \pred(\expr_2, \state_2)\bigr) \implies \\
+ &{} \proves (\hoare{ \ownPhys{\state} }{\expr}{\Ret\val. \Exists\state'. \ownPhys{\state'} \land \pred(\val, \state') }[\mask] )
+\end{align*}
+The first is restricted to deterministic pure reductions, like $\beta$-reduction.
+The second is suited to proving triples for (possibly non-deterministic) atomic expressions; for example, with $\expr \eqdef \;!\ell$ (dereferencing $\ell$) and $\state \eqdef h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB$ and $\pred(\val, \state') \eqdef \state' = (h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB) \land \val = \valB$, one obtains the axiom $\All h, \ell, \valB. \hoare{\ownPhys{h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB}}{!\ell}{\Ret\val. \val = \valB \land \ownPhys{h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB} }$.
+%Axioms for CAS-like operations can be obtained by first deriving rules for the two possible cases, and then using the disjunction rule.
+
+
\section{Derived constructions}
In this section we describe some constructions that we will use throughout the rest of the appendix.
diff --git a/docs/iris.tex b/docs/iris.tex
index bc3ff6ac6ae02f6e983ac4c8e9f7ab2132fb4213..2bf008cfbab53661405adee44b51a3e00461a1dd 100644
--- a/docs/iris.tex
+++ b/docs/iris.tex
@@ -30,10 +30,9 @@
\input{algebra}
\endgroup\clearpage\begingroup
\input{constructions}
-% temporarily disabled, to generate the Iris 2.0 appendix
-%\endgroup\clearpage\begingroup
-%\input{logic}
-%\endgroup\clearpage\begingroup
+\endgroup\clearpage\begingroup
+\input{logic}
+\endgroup\clearpage\begingroup
%\input{model}
%\endgroup\clearpage\begingroup
%\input{derived}
diff --git a/docs/logic.tex b/docs/logic.tex
index e991d07a85c27d8235f2c894511244b671b4ae05..396d3ffc8b6f86eec51b445488c44ee6501ba256 100644
--- a/docs/logic.tex
+++ b/docs/logic.tex
@@ -1,113 +1,93 @@
+\section{Language}
-\section{Parameters to the logic}
-
+A \emph{language} $\Lang$ consists of a set \textdom{Exp} of \emph{expressions} (metavariable $\expr$), a set \textdom{Val} of \emph{values} (metavariable $\val$), and a set \textdom{State} of \emph{states} (metvariable $\state$) such that
\begin{itemize}
-% \item A set \textdom{Exp} of \emph{expressions} (metavariable $\expr$) with a
-% subset \textdom{Val} of values ($\val$). We assume that if $\expr$ is an
-% expression then so is $\fork{\expr}$. We moreover assume a value
-% \textsf{fRet} (giving the intended return value of a fork), and we assume that
-% \begin{align*}
-% \fork{\expr} &\notin \textdom{Val} \\
-% \fork{\expr_1} = \fork{\expr_2} &\implies \expr_1 = \expr_2
-% \end{align*}
-\item A set $\textdom{Ectx}$ of \emph{evaluation contexts} ($\ectx$) that includes the empty context $[\; ]$,
- a plugging operation $\ectx[\expr]$ that produces an expression, and context composition $\circ$
- satisfying the following axioms:
- \begin{align*}
- [\; ][ \expr ] &= \expr \\
- \ectx_1[\ectx_2[\expr]] &= (\ectx_1 \circ \ectx_2) [\expr] \\
- \ectx_1[\expr] = \ectx_2[\expr] &\implies \ectx_1 = \ectx_2 \\
- \ectx[\expr_1] = \ectx[\expr_2] &\implies \expr_1 = \expr_2 \\
- \ectx_1 \circ \ectx_2 = [\; ] &\implies \ectx_1 = \ectx_2 = [\; ] \\
- \ectx[\expr] \in \textdom{Val} &\implies \ectx = [\;] \\
-% \ectx[\expr] = \fork{\expr'} &\implies \ectx = [\;]
- \end{align*}
-
-\item A set \textdom{State} of shared machine states (\eg heaps), metavariable $\state$.
-\item An \emph{atomic stepping relation} \[
- (- \step -) \subseteq (\textdom{State} \times \textdom{Exp}) \times (\textdom{State} \times \textdom{Exp})
-\]
-and notions of an expression to be \emph{reducible} or \emph{stuck}, such that
-\begin{align*}
- \textlog{reducible}(\expr) &\iff \Exists \state, \expr_2, \state_2. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \\
-% \textlog{stuck}(\expr) &\iff \All \ectx, \expr'. \expr = \ectx[\expr'] \implies
- \lnot \textlog{reducible}(\expr')
-\end{align*}
-and the following hold
-% \begin{align*}
-% &\textlog{stuck}(\fork{\expr})& \\
-% &\textlog{stuck}(\val)&\\
-% &\ectx[\expr] = \ectx'[\expr'] \implies \textlog{reducible}(\expr') \implies
-% \expr \notin \textdom{Val} \implies \Exists \ectx''. \ectx' = \ectx \circ \ectx'' &\mbox{(step-by-value)} \\
-% &\ectx[\expr] = \ectx'[\fork{\expr'}] \implies
-% \expr \notin \textdom{Val} \implies \Exists \ectx''. \ectx' = \ectx \circ \ectx'' &\mbox{(fork-by-value)} \\
-% \end{align*}
-
-\item A predicate \textlog{atomic} on expressions satisfying
- \begin{align*}
- &\textlog{atomic}(\expr) \implies \textlog{reducible}(\expr) &\\
- &\textlog{atomic}(\expr) \implies \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \implies \expr_2 \in \textdom{Val} &\mbox{(atomic-step)}
- \end{align*}
-
-
-\item A commutative monoid with zero, $M$.
-That is, a set $\mcar{M}$ with two distinguished elements $\mzero$ (zero, undefined) and $\munit$ (one, unit) and an operation $\mtimes$ (times, combine) such that
-\begin{align*}
- \melt \mtimes \meltB &= \meltB \mtimes \melt \\
- \munit \mtimes \melt &= \melt \\
- (\melt \mtimes \meltB) \mtimes \meltC &= \melt \mtimes (\meltB \mtimes \meltC) \\
- \mzero \mtimes \melt &= \mzero \\
- \mzero &\neq \munit
-\end{align*}
-Let $\mcarp{M} \eqdef |\monoid| \setminus \{\mzero\}$.
-
-\item Arbitrary additional types and terms.
+\item There exist functions $\ofval : \textdom{Val} \to \textdom{Expr}$ and $\toval : \textdom{Expr} \pfn \textdom{val}$ (notice the latter is partial), such that
+\begin{mathpar} {\All \expr, \val. \toval(\expr) = \val \Ra \ofval(\val) = \expr} \and {\All\val. \toval(\ofval(\val)) = \val}
+\end{mathpar}
+\item There exists a \emph{primitive reduction relation} \[(-,- \step -,-,-) \subseteq \textdom{Expr} \times \textdom{State} \times \textdom{Expr} \times \textdom{State} \times (\textdom{Expr} \uplus \set{()})\]
+ We will write $\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2$ for $\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, ()$. \\
+ A reduction $\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, \expr'$ indicates that, when $\expr_1$ reduces to $\expr$, a \emph{new thread} $\expr'$ is forked off.
+\item All values are stuck:
+\[ \expr, \_ \step \_, \_, \_ \Ra \toval(\expr) = \bot \]
+\item There is a predicate defining \emph{atomic} expressions satisfying
+\let\oldcr\cr
+\begin{mathpar}
+ {\All\expr. \atomic(\expr) \Ra \toval(\expr) = \bot} \and
+ {{
+ \begin{inbox}
+\All\expr_1, \state_1, \expr_2, \state_2, \expr'. \atomic(\expr_1) \land \expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, \expr' \Ra {}\\\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad~~ \Exists \val_2. \toval(\expr_2) = \val_2
+ \end{inbox}
+}}
+\end{mathpar}
+In other words, atomic expression \emph{reduce in one step to a value}.
+It does not matter whether they fork off an arbitrary expression.
\end{itemize}
-\section{The concurrent language}
+\subsection{The concurrent language}
+
+For any language $\Lang$, we define the corresponding thread-pool semantics.
\paragraph{Machine syntax}
\[
- \tpool \in \textdom{ThreadPool} \eqdef \mathbb{N} \fpfn \textdom{Exp}
+ \tpool \in \textdom{ThreadPool} \eqdef \bigcup_n \textdom{Exp}^n
\]
-\judgment{Machine reduction} {\cfg{\state}{\tpool} \step
- \cfg{\state'}{\tpool'}}
+\judgment{Machine reduction} {\cfg{\tpool}{\state} \step
+ \cfg{\tpool'}{\state'}}
\begin{mathpar}
\infer
- {\cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state'}{\expr'}}
- {\cfg{\state}{\tpool [i \mapsto \ectx[\expr]]} \step
- \cfg{\state'}{\tpool [i \mapsto \ectx[\expr']]}}
-% \and
-% \infer
-% {}
-% {\cfg{\state}{\tpool [i \mapsto \ectx[\fork{\expr}]]} \step
-% \cfg{\state}{\tpool [i \mapsto \ectx[\textsf{fRet}]] [j \mapsto \expr]}}
+ {\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2, \expr' \and \expr' \neq ()}
+ {\cfg{\tpool \dplus [\expr_1] \dplus \tpool'}{\state} \step
+ \cfg{\tpool \dplus [\expr_2] \dplus \tpool' \dplus [\expr']}{\state'}}
+\and\infer
+ {\expr_1, \state_1 \step \expr_2, \state_2}
+ {\cfg{\tpool \dplus [\expr_1] \dplus \tpool'}{\state} \step
+ \cfg{\tpool \dplus [\expr_2] \dplus \tpool'}{\state'}}
\end{mathpar}
-\section{Syntax}
-\subsection{Grammar}\label{sec:grammar}
+\section{The logic}
+
+To instantiate Iris, you need to define the following parameters:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item A language $\Lang$
+\item A locally contractive functor $\iFunc : \COFEs \to \CMRAs$ defining the ghost state
+\end{itemize}
-\paragraph{Signatures.}
-We use a signature to account syntactically for the logic's parameters.
-A \emph{signature} $\Sig = (\SigType, \SigFn)$ comprises a set
+\noindent
+As usual for higher-order logics, you can furthermore pick a \emph{signature} $\Sig = (\SigType, \SigFn, \SigAx)$ to add more types, symbols and axioms to the language.
+You have to make sure that $\SigType$ includes the base types:
\[
- \SigType \supseteq \{ \textsort{Val}, \textsort{Exp}, \textsort{Ectx}, \textsort{State}, \textsort{Monoid}, \textsort{InvName}, \textsort{InvMask}, \Prop \}
+ \SigType \supseteq \{ \textsort{Val}, \textsort{Expr}, \textsort{State}, \textsort{M}, \textsort{InvName}, \textsort{InvMask}, \Prop \}
\]
-of base types (or base \emph{sorts}) and a set $\SigFn$ of typed function symbols.
-This means that each function symbol has an associated \emph{arity} comprising a natural number $n$ and an ordered list of $n+1$ base types.
+Elements of $\SigType$ are ranged over by $\sigtype$.
+
+Each function symbol in $\SigFn$ has an associated \emph{arity} comprising a natural number $n$ and an ordered list of $n+1$ types $\type$ (the grammar of $\type$ is defined below, and depends only on $\SigType$).
We write
\[
\sigfn : \type_1, \dots, \type_n \to \type_{n+1} \in \SigFn
\]
to express that $\sigfn$ is a function symbol with the indicated arity.
-\dave{Say something not-too-shabby about adequacy: We don't spell out what it means.}
+
+Furthermore, $\SigAx$ is a set of \emph{axioms}, that is, terms $\term$ of type $\Prop$.
+Again, the grammar of terms and their typing rules are defined below, and depends only on $\SigType$ and $\SigFn$, not on $\SigAx$.
+Elements of $\SigAx$ are ranged over by $\sigax$.
+
+\section{Syntax}
+
+\subsection{Grammar}\label{sec:grammar}
\paragraph{Syntax.}
Iris syntax is built up from a signature $\Sig$ and a countably infinite set $\textdom{Var}$ of variables (ranged over by metavariables $x$, $y$, $z$):
\begin{align*}
+ \type ::={}&
+ \sigtype \mid
+ \unitsort \mid
+ \type \times \type \mid
+ \type \to \type
+\\[0.4em]
\term, \prop, \pred ::={}&
x \mid
\sigfn(\term_1, \dots, \term_n) \mid
@@ -115,14 +95,14 @@ Iris syntax is built up from a signature $\Sig$ and a countably infinite set $\t
(\term, \term) \mid
\pi_i\; \term \mid
\Lam x.\term \mid
- \term\;\term \mid
+ \term(\term) \mid
\mzero \mid
\munit \mid
\term \mtimes \term \mid
\\&
\FALSE \mid
\TRUE \mid
- \term =_\sort \term \mid
+ \term =_\type \term \mid
\prop \Ra \prop \mid
\prop \land \prop \mid
\prop \lor \prop \mid
@@ -130,8 +110,8 @@ Iris syntax is built up from a signature $\Sig$ and a countably infinite set $\t
\prop \wand \prop \mid
\\&
\MU \var. \pred \mid
- \Exists \var:\sort. \prop \mid
- \All \var:\sort. \prop \mid
+ \Exists \var:\type. \prop \mid
+ \All \var:\type. \prop \mid
\\&
\knowInv{\term}{\prop} \mid
\ownGGhost{\term} \mid
@@ -139,66 +119,58 @@ Iris syntax is built up from a signature $\Sig$ and a countably infinite set $\t
\always\prop \mid
{\later\prop} \mid
\pvsA{\prop}{\term}{\term} \mid
- \dynA{\term}{\pred}{\term} \mid
- \timeless{\prop}
-\\[0.4em]
- \sort ::={}&
- \type \mid
- \unitsort \mid
- \sort \times \sort \mid
- \sort \to \sort
+ \dynA{\term}{\pred}{\term}
\end{align*}
Recursive predicates must be \emph{guarded}: in $\MU \var. \pred$, the variable $\var$ can only appear under the later $\later$ modality.
\paragraph{Metavariable conventions.}
-We introduce additional metavariables ranging over terms and generally let the choice of metavariable indicate the term's sort:
+We introduce additional metavariables ranging over terms and generally let the choice of metavariable indicate the term's type:
\[
\begin{array}{r|l}
- \text{metavariable} & \text{sort} \\\hline
+ \text{metavariable} & \text{type} \\\hline
\term, \termB & \text{arbitrary} \\
\val, \valB & \textsort{Val} \\
\expr & \textsort{Exp} \\
- \ectx & \textsort{Ectx} \\
\state & \textsort{State} \\
\end{array}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{array}{r|l}
- \text{metavariable} & \text{sort} \\\hline
+ \text{metavariable} & \text{type} \\\hline
\iname & \textsort{InvName} \\
\mask & \textsort{InvMask} \\
- \melt, \meltB & \textsort{Monoid} \\
+ \melt, \meltB & \textsort{M} \\
\prop, \propB, \propC & \Prop \\
- \pred, \predB, \predC & \sort\to\Prop \text{ (when $\sort$ is clear from context)} \\
+ \pred, \predB, \predC & \type\to\Prop \text{ (when $\type$ is clear from context)} \\
\end{array}
\]
\paragraph{Variable conventions.}
We often abuse notation, using the preceding \emph{term} meta-variables to range over (bound) \emph{variables}.
We omit type annotations in binders, when the type is clear from context.
+We assume that, if a term occurs multiple times in a rule, its free variables are exactly those binders which are available at every occurrence.
\subsection{Types}\label{sec:types}
Iris terms are simply-typed.
-The judgment $\vctx \proves_\Sig \wtt{\term}{\sort}$ expresses that, in signature $\Sig$ and variable context $\vctx$, the term $\term$ has sort $\sort$.
-In giving the rules for this judgment, we omit the signature (which does not change).
+The judgment $\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\type}$ expresses that, in variable context $\vctx$, the term $\term$ has type $\type$.
-A variable context, $\vctx = x_1:\sort_1, \dots, x_n:\sort_n$, declares a list of variables and their sorts.
-In writing $\vctx, x:\sort$, we presuppose that $x$ is not already declared in $\vctx$.
+A variable context, $\vctx = x_1:\type_1, \dots, x_n:\type_n$, declares a list of variables and their types.
+In writing $\vctx, x:\type$, we presuppose that $x$ is not already declared in $\vctx$.
-\judgment{Well-typed terms}{\vctx \proves_\Sig \wtt{\term}{\sort}}
+\judgment{Well-typed terms}{\vctx \proves_\Sig \wtt{\term}{\type}}
\begin{mathparpagebreakable}
%%% variables and function symbols
- \axiom{x : \sort \proves \wtt{x}{\sort}}
+ \axiom{x : \type \proves \wtt{x}{\type}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort}}
- {\vctx, x:\sort' \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort}}
+ \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\type}}
+ {\vctx, x:\type' \proves \wtt{\term}{\type}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx, x:\sort', y:\sort' \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort}}
- {\vctx, x:\sort' \proves \wtt{\term[x/y]}{\sort}}
+ \infer{\vctx, x:\type', y:\type' \proves \wtt{\term}{\type}}
+ {\vctx, x:\type' \proves \wtt{\term[x/y]}{\type}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx_1, x:\sort', y:\sort'', \vctx_2 \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort}}
- {\vctx_1, x:\sort'', y:\sort', \vctx_2 \proves \wtt{\term[y/x,x/y]}{\sort}}
+ \infer{\vctx_1, x:\type', y:\type'', \vctx_2 \proves \wtt{\term}{\type}}
+ {\vctx_1, x:\type'', y:\type', \vctx_2 \proves \wtt{\term[y/x,x/y]}{\type}}
\and
\infer{
\vctx \proves \wtt{\term_1}{\type_1} \and
@@ -212,35 +184,33 @@ In writing $\vctx, x:\sort$, we presuppose that $x$ is not already declared in $
\and
\axiom{\vctx \proves \wtt{\unitval}{\unitsort}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort_1} \and \vctx \proves \wtt{\termB}{\sort_2}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{(\term,\termB)}{\sort_1 \times \sort_2}}
+ \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\type_1} \and \vctx \proves \wtt{\termB}{\type_2}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{(\term,\termB)}{\type_1 \times \type_2}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort_1 \times \sort_2} \and i \in \{1, 2\}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\pi_i\,\term}{\sort_i}}
+ \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\type_1 \times \type_2} \and i \in \{1, 2\}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\pi_i\,\term}{\type_i}}
%%% functions
\and
- \infer{\vctx, x:\sort \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort'}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\Lam x. \term}{\sort \to \sort'}}
+ \infer{\vctx, x:\type \proves \wtt{\term}{\type'}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\Lam x. \term}{\type \to \type'}}
\and
\infer
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort \to \sort'} \and \wtt{\termB}{\sort}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\term\;\termB}{\sort'}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\type \to \type'} \and \wtt{\termB}{\type}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\term(\termB)}{\type'}}
%%% monoids
\and
- \axiom{\vctx \proves \wtt{\mzero}{\textsort{Monoid}}}
-\and
- \axiom{\vctx \proves \wtt{\munit}{\textsort{Monoid}}}
+ \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\textsort{M}}}{\vctx \proves \wtt{\munit(\term)}{\textsort{M}}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\melt}{\textsort{Monoid}} \and \vctx \proves \wtt{\meltB}{\textsort{Monoid}}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\melt \mtimes \meltB}{\textsort{Monoid}}}
+ \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\melt}{\textsort{M}} \and \vctx \proves \wtt{\meltB}{\textsort{M}}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\melt \mtimes \meltB}{\textsort{M}}}
%%% props and predicates
\\
\axiom{\vctx \proves \wtt{\FALSE}{\Prop}}
\and
\axiom{\vctx \proves \wtt{\TRUE}{\Prop}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\sort} \and \vctx \proves \wtt{\termB}{\sort}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\term =_\sort \termB}{\Prop}}
+ \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\term}{\type} \and \vctx \proves \wtt{\termB}{\type}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\term =_\type \termB}{\Prop}}
\and
\infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\prop}{\Prop} \and \vctx \proves \wtt{\propB}{\Prop}}
{\vctx \proves \wtt{\prop \Ra \propB}{\Prop}}
@@ -258,17 +228,17 @@ In writing $\vctx, x:\sort$, we presuppose that $x$ is not already declared in $
{\vctx \proves \wtt{\prop \wand \propB}{\Prop}}
\and
\infer{
- \vctx, \var:\sort\to\Prop \proves \wtt{\pred}{\sort\to\Prop} \and
+ \vctx, \var:\type\to\Prop \proves \wtt{\pred}{\type\to\Prop} \and
\text{$\var$ is guarded in $\pred$}
}{
- \vctx \proves \wtt{\MU \var. \pred}{\sort\to\Prop}
+ \vctx \proves \wtt{\MU \var. \pred}{\type\to\Prop}
}
\and
- \infer{\vctx, x:\sort \proves \wtt{\prop}{\Prop}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\Exists x:\sort. \prop}{\Prop}}
+ \infer{\vctx, x:\type \proves \wtt{\prop}{\Prop}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\Exists x:\type. \prop}{\Prop}}
\and
- \infer{\vctx, x:\sort \proves \wtt{\prop}{\Prop}}
- {\vctx \proves \wtt{\All x:\sort. \prop}{\Prop}}
+ \infer{\vctx, x:\type \proves \wtt{\prop}{\Prop}}
+ {\vctx \proves \wtt{\All x:\type. \prop}{\Prop}}
\and
\infer{
\vctx \proves \wtt{\prop}{\Prop} \and
@@ -277,7 +247,7 @@ In writing $\vctx, x:\sort$, we presuppose that $x$ is not already declared in $
\vctx \proves \wtt{\knowInv{\iname}{\prop}}{\Prop}
}
\and
- \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\melt}{\textsort{Monoid}}}
+ \infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\melt}{\textsort{M}}}
{\vctx \proves \wtt{\ownGGhost{\melt}}{\Prop}}
\and
\infer{\vctx \proves \wtt{\state}{\textsort{State}}}
@@ -304,33 +274,28 @@ In writing $\vctx, x:\sort$, we presuppose that $x$ is not already declared in $
}{
\vctx \proves \wtt{\dynA{\expr}{\pred}{\mask}}{\Prop}
}
-\and
- \infer{
- \vctx \proves \wtt{\prop}{\Prop}
- }{
- \vctx \proves \wtt{\timeless{\prop}}{\Prop}
- }
\end{mathparpagebreakable}
+\subsection{Timeless Propositions}
+
+Some propositions are \emph{timeless}, which intuitively means that step-indexing does not affect them.
+This is a \emph{meta-level} assertions about propositions, defined by the following judgment.
-\section{Base logic}
+\judgment{Timeless Propositions}{\timeless{P}}
+\ralf{Define a judgment that defines them.}
+
+\subsection{Base logic}
+
+\ralf{Go on checking below.}
The judgment $\vctx \mid \pfctx \proves \prop$ says that with free variables $\vctx$, proposition $\prop$ holds whenever all assumptions $\pfctx$ hold.
We implicitly assume that an arbitrary variable context, $\vctx$, is added to every constituent of the rules.
Axioms $\prop \Ra \propB$ stand for judgments $\vctx \mid \cdot \proves \prop \Ra \propB$ with no assumptions.
(Bi-implications are analogous.)
-% \subsubsection{Judgments}
-%
-% Proof rules implicitly assume well-sortedness.
-
-% e\subsection{Laws of intuitionistic higher-order logic with guarded recursion over a simply-typed lambda calculus}\label{sec:HOL}
-
+\paragraph{Laws of intuitionistic higher-order logic.}
This is entirely standard.
-Soundness follows from the theorem that ${\cal U}(\any, \textdom{Prop})
-: {\cal U}^{\textrm{op}} \to \textrm{Poset}$ is a hyperdoctrine.
-
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH{Asm}
{\prop \in \pfctx}
@@ -421,7 +386,7 @@ Soundness follows from the theorem that ${\cal U}(\any, \textdom{Prop})
{\pfctx \proves \term \in \pred[\mu\var \in \Pred(\sort). \pred/\var]}
\end{mathpar}
-\subsection{Axioms from the logic of (affine) bunched implications}
+\paragraph{Laws of (affine) bunched implications.}
\begin{mathpar}
\begin{array}{rMcMl}
\prop * \propB &\Lra& \propB * \prop \\
@@ -452,7 +417,7 @@ Soundness follows from the theorem that ${\cal U}(\any, \textdom{Prop})
{\pfctx, \prop * \propB \proves \propC}
\end{mathpar}
-\subsection{Laws for ghosts and physical resources}
+\paragraph{Laws for ghosts and physical resources.}
\begin{mathpar}
\begin{array}{rMcMl}
@@ -468,7 +433,7 @@ Soundness follows from the theorem that ${\cal U}(\any, \textdom{Prop})
\end{array}
\end{mathpar}
-\subsection{Laws for the later modality}\label{sec:later}
+\paragraph{Laws for the later modality.}
\begin{mathpar}
\inferH{Mono}
@@ -492,7 +457,7 @@ Soundness follows from the theorem that ${\cal U}(\any, \textdom{Prop})
\end{array}
\end{mathpar}
-\subsection{Laws for the always modality}\label{sec:always}
+\paragraph{Laws for the always modality.}
\begin{mathpar}
\axiomH{Necessity}
@@ -517,278 +482,10 @@ Soundness follows from the theorem that ${\cal U}(\any, \textdom{Prop})
\end{mathpar}
Note that $\always$ binds more tightly than $*$, $\land$, $\lor$, and $\Ra$.
-\section{Program logic}\label{sec:proglog}
-
-Hoare triples and view shifts are syntactic sugar for weakest (liberal) preconditions and primitive view shifts, respectively:
-\[
-\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask] \eqdef \always{(\prop \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\lambda\Ret\val.\propB}{\mask})}
-\qquad\qquad
-\begin{aligned}
-\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB &\eqdef \always{(\prop \Ra \pvsA{\propB}{\mask_1}{\mask_2})} \\
-\prop \vsE[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB &\eqdef \prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB \land \propB \vs[\mask2][\mask_1] \prop
-\end{aligned}
-\]
-We write just one mask for a view shift when $\mask_1 = \mask_2$.
-The convention for omitted masks is generous:
-An omitted $\mask$ is $\top$ for Hoare triples and $\emptyset$ for view shifts.
-
-% PDS: We're repeating ourselves. We gave Γ conventions and we're about to give Θ conventions. Also, the scope of "Below" is unclear.
-% Below, we implicitly assume the same context for all judgements which don't have an explicit context at \emph{all} pre-conditions \emph{and} the conclusion.
+\paragraph{Laws of primitive view shifts.}
-Henceforward, we implicitly assume a proof context, $\pfctx$, is added to every constituent of the rules.
-Generally, this is an arbitrary proof context.
-We write $\provesalways$ to denote judgments that can only be extended with a boxed proof context.
+\paragraph{Laws of weakest preconditions.}
-\ralf{Give the actual base rules from the Coq development instead}
-
-\subsection{Hoare triples}
-\begin{mathpar}
-\inferH{Ret}
- {}
- {\hoare{\TRUE}{\valB}{\Ret\val. \val = \valB}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferH{Bind}
- {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \\
- \All \val. \hoare{\propB}{K[\val]}{\Ret\valB.\propC}[\mask]}
- {\hoare{\prop}{K[\expr]}{\Ret\valB.\propC}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferH{Csq}
- {\prop \vs \prop' \\
- \hoare{\prop'}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB'}[\mask] \\
- \All \val. \propB' \vs \propB}
- {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferH{Frame}
- {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]}
- {\hoare{\prop * \propC}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB * \propC}[\mask \uplus \mask']}
-\and
-\inferH{AFrame}
- {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \and \text{$\expr$ not a value}
- }
- {\hoare{\prop * \later\propC}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB * \propC}[\mask \uplus \mask']}
-% \and
-% \inferH{Fork}
-% {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\any. \TRUE}[\top]}
-% {\hoare{\later\prop * \later\propB}{\fork{\expr}}{\Ret\val. \val = \textsf{fRet} \land \propB}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferH{ACsq}
- {\prop \vs[\mask \uplus \mask'][\mask] \prop' \\
- \hoare{\prop'}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB'}[\mask] \\
- \All\val. \propB' \vs[\mask][\mask \uplus \mask'] \propB \\
- \physatomic{\expr}
- }
- {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask \uplus \mask']}
-\end{mathpar}
-
-\subsection{View shifts}
-
-\begin{mathpar}
-\inferH{NewInv}
- {\infinite(\mask)}
- {\later{\prop} \vs[\mask] \exists \iname\in\mask.\; \knowInv{\iname}{\prop}}
-\and
-\inferH{FpUpd}
- {\melt \mupd \meltsB}
- {\ownGGhost{\melt} \vs \exists \meltB \in \meltsB.\; \ownGGhost{\meltB}}
-\and
-\inferH{VSTrans}
- {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB \and \propB \vs[\mask_2][\mask_3] \propC \and \mask_2 \subseteq \mask_1 \cup \mask_3}
- {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_3] \propC}
-\and
-\inferH{VSImp}
- {\always{(\prop \Ra \propB)}}
- {\prop \vs[\emptyset] \propB}
-\and
-\inferH{VSFrame}
- {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB}
- {\prop * \propC \vs[\mask_1 \uplus \mask'][\mask_2 \uplus \mask'] \propB * \propC}
-\and
-\inferH{VSTimeless}
- {\timeless{\prop}}
- {\later \prop \vs \prop}
-\and
-\axiomH{InvOpen}
- {\knowInv{\iname}{\prop} \proves \TRUE \vs[\{ \iname \} ][\emptyset] \later \prop}
-\and
-\axiomH{InvClose}
- {\knowInv{\iname}{\prop} \proves \later \prop \vs[\emptyset][\{ \iname \} ] \TRUE }
-\end{mathpar}
-
-\vspace{5pt}
-Note that $\timeless{\prop}$ means that $\prop$ does not depend on the step index.
-Furthermore, $$\melt \mupd \meltsB \eqdef \always{\All \melt_f. \melt \sep \melt_f \Ra \Exists \meltB \in \meltsB. \meltB \sep \melt_f}$$
-
-\subsection{Derived rules}
-
-\paragraph{Derived structural rules.}
-The following are easily derived by unfolding the sugar for Hoare triples and view shifts.
-\begin{mathpar}
-\inferHB{Disj}
- {\hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask] \and \hoare{\propB}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
- {\hoare{\prop \lor \propB}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferHB{VSDisj}
- {\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC \and \propB \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
- {\prop \lor \propB \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
-\and
-\inferHB{Exist}
- {\All \var. \hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask]}
- {\hoare{\Exists \var. \prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propB}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferHB{VSExist}
- {\All \var. (\prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB)}
- {(\Exists \var. \prop) \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propB}
-\and
-\inferHB{BoxOut}
- {\always\propB \provesalways \hoare{\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
- {\hoare{\prop \land \always{\propB}}{\expr}{\Ret\val.\propC}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferHB{VSBoxOut}
- {\always\propB \provesalways \prop \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
- {\prop \land \always{\propB} \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \propC}
- \and
-\inferH{False}
- {}
- {\hoare{\FALSE}{\expr}{\Ret \val. \prop}[\mask]}
-\and
-\inferH{VSFalse}
- {}
- {\FALSE \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \prop }
-\end{mathpar}
-The proofs all follow the same pattern, so we only show two of them in detail.
-\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{Exist}]
- After unfolding the syntactic sugar for Hoare triples and removing the boxes from premise and conclusion, our goal becomes
- \[
- (\Exists \var. \prop(\var)) \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propB}{\mask}
- \]
- (remember that $\var$ is free in $\prop$) and the premise reads
- \[
- \All \var. \prop(\var) \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propB}{\mask}.
- \]
- Let $\var$ be given and assume $\prop(\var)$.
- To show $\dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propB}{\mask}$, apply the premise to $\var$ and $\prop(\var)$.
-
- For the other direction, assume
- \[
- \hoare{\Exists \var. \prop(\var)}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]
- \]
- and let $\var$ be given.
- We have to show $\hoare{\prop(\var)}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]$.
- This trivially follows from \ruleref{Csq} with $\prop(\var) \Ra \Exists \var. \prop(\var)$.
-\end{proof}
-
-\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{BoxOut}]
- After unfolding the syntactic sugar for Hoare triples, our goal becomes
- \begin{equation}\label{eq:boxin:goal}
- \always\pfctx \proves \always\bigl(\prop\land\always \propB \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask}\bigr)
- \end{equation}
- while our premise reads
- \begin{equation}\label{eq:boxin:as}
- \always\pfctx, \always\propB \proves \always(\prop \Ra \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask})
- \end{equation}
- By the introduction rules for $\always$ and implication, it suffices to show
- \[ (\always\pfctx), \prop,\always \propB \proves \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask} \]
- By modus ponens and \ruleref{Necessity}, it suffices to show~\eqref{eq:boxin:as}, which is exactly our assumption.
-
- For the other direction, assume~\eqref{eq:boxin:goal}. We have to show~\eqref{eq:boxin:as}. By \ruleref{AlwaysIntro} and implication introduction, it suffices to show
- \[ (\always\pfctx), \prop,\always \propB \proves \dynA{\expr}{\Lam\val. \propC}{\mask} \]
- which easily follows from~\eqref{eq:boxin:goal}.
-\end{proof}
-
-\paragraph{Derived rules for invariants.}
-Invariants can be opened around atomic expressions and view shifts.
-
-\begin{mathpar}
-\inferH{Inv}
- {\hoare{\later{\propC} * \prop }
- {\expr}
- {\Ret\val. \later{\propC} * \propB }[\mask]
- \and \physatomic{\expr}
- }
- {\knowInv{\iname}{\propC} \proves \hoare{\prop}
- {\expr}
- {\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask \uplus \{ \iname \}]
- }
-\and
-\inferH{VSInv}
- {\later{\prop} * \propB \vs[\mask_1][\mask_2] \later{\prop} * \propC}
- {\knowInv{\iname}{\prop} \proves \propB \vs[\mask_1 \uplus \{ \iname \}][\mask_2 \uplus \{ \iname \}] \propC}
-\end{mathpar}
-
-\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{Inv}]
- Use \ruleref{ACsq} with $\mask_1 \eqdef \mask \cup \{\iname\}$, $\mask_2 \eqdef \mask$.
- The view shifts are obtained by \ruleref{InvOpen} and \ruleref{InvClose} with framing of $\mask$ and $\prop$ or $\propB$, respectively.
-\end{proof}
-
-\begin{proof}[Proof of \ruleref{VSInv}]
-Analogous to the proof of \ruleref{Inv}, using \ruleref{VSTrans} instead of \ruleref{ACsq}.
-\end{proof}
-
-\subsubsection{Unsound rules}
-
-Some rule suggestions (or rather, wishes) keep coming up, which are unsound. We collect them here.
-\begin{mathpar}
- \infer
- {P \vs Q}
- {\later P \vs \later Q}
- \and
- \infer
- {\later(P \vs Q)}
- {\later P \vs \later Q}
-\end{mathpar}
-
-Of course, the second rule implies the first, so let's focus on that.
-Since implications work under $\later$, from $\later P$ we can get $\later \pvs{Q}$.
-If we now try to prove $\pvs{\later Q}$, we will be unable to establish world satisfaction in the new world:
-We have no choice but to use $\later \pvs{Q}$ at one step index below what we are operating on (because we have it under a $\later$).
-We can easily get world satisfaction for that lower step-index (by downwards-closedness of step-indexed predicates).
-We can, however, not make much use of the world satisfaction that we get out, becaase it is one step-index too low.
-
-\subsection{Adequacy}
-
-The adequacy statement reads as follows:
-\begin{align*}
- &\All \mask, \expr, \val, \pred, i, \state, \state', \tpool'.
- \\&( \proves \hoare{\ownPhys\state}{\expr}{x.\; \pred(x)}[\mask]) \implies
- \\&\cfg{\state}{[i \mapsto \expr]} \step^\ast
- \cfg{\state'}{[i \mapsto \val] \uplus \tpool'} \implies
- \\&\pred(\val)
-\end{align*}
-where $\pred$ can mention neither resources nor invariants.
-
-\subsection{Axiom lifting}\label{sec:lifting}
-
-The following lemmas help in proving axioms for a particular language.
-The first applies to expressions with side-effects, and the second to side-effect-free expressions.
-\dave{Update the others, and the example, wrt the new treatment of $\predB$.}
-\begin{align*}
- &\All \expr, \state, \pred, \prop, \propB, \mask. \\
- &\textlog{reducible}(e) \implies \\
- &(\All \expr', \state'. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state'}{\expr'} \implies \pred(\expr', \state')) \implies \\
- &{} \proves \bigl( (\All \expr', \state'. \pred (\expr', \state') \Ra \hoare{\prop}{\expr'}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]) \Ra \hoare{ \later \prop * \ownPhys{\state} }{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \bigr) \\
- \quad\\
- &\All \expr, \pred, \prop, \propB, \mask. \\
- &\textlog{reducible}(e) \implies \\
- &(\All \state, \expr_2, \state_2. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \implies \state_2 = \state \land \pred(\expr_2)) \implies \\
- &{} \proves \bigl( (\All \expr'. \pred(\expr') \Ra \hoare{\prop}{\expr'}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask]) \Ra \hoare{\later\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \bigr)
-\end{align*}
-Note that $\pred$ is a meta-logic predicate---it does not depend on any world or resources being owned.
-
-The following specializations cover all cases of a heap-manipulating lambda calculus like $F_{\mu!}$.
-\begin{align*}
- &\All \expr, \expr', \prop, \propB, \mask. \\
- &\textlog{reducible}(e) \implies \\
- &(\All \state, \expr_2, \state_2. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \implies \state_2 = \state \land \expr_2 = \expr') \implies \\
- &{} \proves (\hoare{\prop}{\expr'}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] \Ra \hoare{\later\prop}{\expr}{\Ret\val. \propB}[\mask] ) \\
- \quad \\
- &\All \expr, \state, \pred, \mask. \\
- &\textlog{atomic}(e) \implies \\
- &\bigl(\All \expr_2, \state_2. \cfg{\state}{\expr} \step \cfg{\state_2}{\expr_2} \implies \pred(\expr_2, \state_2)\bigr) \implies \\
- &{} \proves (\hoare{ \ownPhys{\state} }{\expr}{\Ret\val. \Exists\state'. \ownPhys{\state'} \land \pred(\val, \state') }[\mask] )
-\end{align*}
-The first is restricted to deterministic pure reductions, like $\beta$-reduction.
-The second is suited to proving triples for (possibly non-deterministic) atomic expressions; for example, with $\expr \eqdef \;!\ell$ (dereferencing $\ell$) and $\state \eqdef h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB$ and $\pred(\val, \state') \eqdef \state' = (h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB) \land \val = \valB$, one obtains the axiom $\All h, \ell, \valB. \hoare{\ownPhys{h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB}}{!\ell}{\Ret\val. \val = \valB \land \ownPhys{h \mtimes \ell \mapsto \valB} }$.
-%Axioms for CAS-like operations can be obtained by first deriving rules for the two possible cases, and then using the disjunction rule.
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
diff --git a/docs/setup.tex b/docs/setup.tex
index a75c3a5a95ffb218671a3d3890983f501850a632..016f0ee4d97b41cbea4145b509193a7a2aec6a37 100644
--- a/docs/setup.tex
+++ b/docs/setup.tex
@@ -149,6 +149,7 @@
\newcommand{\ALT}{\ |\ }
+\newcommand\dplus{\mathbin{+\kern-1.0ex+}}
\newcommand{\upclose}{\mathord{\uparrow}}
@@ -198,31 +199,7 @@
\end{tabu}%
}
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-% CMRA (RESOURCE ALGEBRA) SYMBOLS & NOTATION & IDENTIFIERS
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\newcommand{\textmon}[1]{\textsc{#1}}
-
-\newcommand{\monoid}{M}
-\newcommand{\mval}{V}
-
-\newcommand{\melt}{a}
-\newcommand{\meltB}{b}
-\newcommand{\meltC}{c}
-\newcommand{\melts}{A}
-\newcommand{\meltsB}{B}
-
-\newcommand{\mcar}[1]{|#1|}
-\newcommand{\mcarp}[1]{\mcar{#1}^{+}}
-\newcommand{\mzero}{\bot}
-\newcommand{\munit}{\mathord{\varepsilon}}
-\newcommand{\mtimes}{\mathbin{\cdot}}
-\newcommand{\mdiv}{\mathbin{\div}}
-
-\newcommand{\mupd}{\rightsquigarrow}
-\newcommand{\mincl}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrel{\stackrel{#1}{\leq}}}}
-
+\newcommand{\Func}{F} % functor
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% MODEL-SPECIFIC SYMBOLS & NOTATION & IDENTIFIERS
@@ -262,6 +239,36 @@
\newcommand{\PropDom}{\textdom{Prop}}
\newcommand{\PredDom}{\textdom{Pred}}
+\newcommand{\COFEs}{\mathcal{U}} % category of COFEs
+\newcommand{\iFunc}{\Sigma}
+
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% CMRA (RESOURCE ALGEBRA) SYMBOLS & NOTATION & IDENTIFIERS
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\newcommand{\textmon}[1]{\textsc{#1}}
+
+\newcommand{\monoid}{M}
+\newcommand{\mval}{V}
+
+\newcommand{\melt}{a}
+\newcommand{\meltB}{b}
+\newcommand{\meltC}{c}
+\newcommand{\melts}{A}
+\newcommand{\meltsB}{B}
+
+\newcommand{\mcar}[1]{|#1|}
+\newcommand{\mcarp}[1]{\mcar{#1}^{+}}
+\newcommand{\mzero}{\bot}
+\newcommand{\munit}{\mathord{\varepsilon}}
+\newcommand{\mtimes}{\mathbin{\cdot}}
+\newcommand{\mdiv}{\mathbin{\div}}
+
+\newcommand{\mupd}{\rightsquigarrow}
+\newcommand{\mincl}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrel{\stackrel{#1}{\leq}}}}
+
+\newcommand{\CMRAs}{\mathcal{R}} % category of CMRAs
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% LOGIC SYMBOLS & NOTATION & IDENTIFIERS
@@ -272,7 +279,10 @@
\newcommand{\Sig}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\SigType}{\mathcal{T}}
\newcommand{\SigFn}{\mathcal{F}}
+\newcommand{\SigAx}{\mathcal{A}}
+\newcommand{\sigtype}{T}
\newcommand{\sigfn}{F}
+\newcommand{\sigax}{A}
\newcommand{\type}{\tau}
@@ -284,8 +294,6 @@
\newcommand{\termB}{u}
\newcommand{\termVal}{V}
-\newcommand{\sort}{\Sigma}
-
\newcommand{\vctx}{\Gamma}
\newcommand{\pfctx}{\Theta}
@@ -425,7 +433,11 @@
\newcommand{\state}{\sigma}
\newcommand{\step}{\ra}
-\newcommand{\ectx}{K}
+\newcommand{\toval}{\mathit{val}}
+\newcommand{\ofval}{\mathit{expr}}
+\newcommand{\atomic}{\mathit{atomic}}
+\newcommand{\Lang}{\Lambda}
+
\newcommand{\tpool}{T}
\newcommand{\cfg}[2]{{#1};{#2}}