Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with correctness-proof
Search options not deleted
user 139594
Questions that ask for or about correctness proofs of algorithms.
0
votes
1
answer
93
views
Mechanically proving element non-membership
I'm facing a (possibly simple) problem while proving a theorem.
I need to show that under several (true) assumptions, some element is not in a set. Such assumptions are all met and there is are lemmat …
- 543
0
votes
Accepted
Mechanically proving element non-membership
I eventually proved the theorem in a mechanical fashion and I want to thank j_random_hacker for pointing out a proof sketch based on induction and correcting my wrong initial formal statement.
The act …
- 543
3
votes
1
answer
113
views
PetersonNP, mechanical mutual exclusion proof
Good day everyone,
I'm currently trying to carry out the PetersonNP (a.k.a. FilterLock) correctness proof (mutual exclusion).
I've found several proof sketches on concurrency books but I'm interested …
- 543
1
vote
Accepted
PetersonNP, mechanical mutual exclusion proof
I eventually found the solution for the first problem I proposed.
Lemma 10.5.3.2 CAN be proved by induction, but it requires additional lemmata for doing so. I was misled by the note on page 292, spec …
- 543