### try to clarify adequacy

parent 6bd50654
 ... @@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ Second, a proof of a weakest precondition with any postcondition should imply th ... @@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ Second, a proof of a weakest precondition with any postcondition should imply th \end{enumerate} \end{enumerate} \end{defn} \end{defn} To express the adequacy statement for functional correctness, we assume that the signature $\Sig$ adds a predicate $\pred$ to the logic which reflects the set $V$ of legal return values into the logic: To express the adequacy statement for functional correctness, we assume that the signature $\Sig$ adds a predicate $\pred$ to the logic: $\pred : \Val \to \Prop \in \SigFn$ Furthermore, we assume that the \emph{interpretation} $\Sem\pred$ of $\pred$ reflects some set $V$ of legal return values into the logic (also see \Sref{sec:model}): \[\begin{array}{rMcMl} \[\begin{array}{rMcMl} \Sem\pred &:& \Sem{\Val\,} \nfn \Sem\Prop \\ \Sem\pred &:& \Sem{\Val\,} \nfn \Sem\Prop \\ \Sem\pred &\eqdef& \Lam \val. \Lam \any. \setComp{n}{v \in V} \Sem\pred &\eqdef& \Lam \val. \Lam \any. \setComp{n}{v \in V} ... ...
Supports Markdown
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment