[pron]

> to me it seems like high-level programming languages are already close to a specification language

They are not. The power of rich and succinct specification languages (like TLA+) comes from the ability to succinctly express things that cannot be efficiently computed, or at all. That is because a description of what a program does is necessarily at a higher level of abstraction than the program (i.e. there are many possible programs or even magical oracles that can do what a program does).

To give a contrived example, let's say you want to state that a particular computation terminates. To do it in a clear and concise manner, you want to express the property of termination (and prove that the computation satisfies it), but that property is not, itself, computable. There are some ways around it, but as a rule, a specification language is more convenient when it can describe things that cannot be executed.

[nyrikki]

TLA+ is not a silver bullet, and like all temporal logic, has constraints.

You really have to be able to reduce your models to: “at some point in the future, this will happen," or "it will always be true from now on”

Have probabilistic outcomes? Or even floats [0] and it becomes challenging and strings are a mess.

> Note there is not a float type. Floats have complex semantics that are extremely hard to represent. Usually you can abstract them out, but if you absolutely need floats then TLA+ is the wrong tool for the job.

TLA+ works for the problems it is suitable for, try and extend past that and it simply fails.

[0] https://learntla.com/core/operators.html

[pron]

> You really have to be able to reduce your models to: “at some point in the future, this will happen," or "it will always be true from now on”

You really don't. It's not LTL. Abstraction/refinement relations are at the core of TLA.

> Or even floats [0] and it becomes challenging and strings are a mess.

No problem with floats or strings as far as specification goes. The particular verification tools you choose to run on your TLA+ spec may or may not have limitations in these areas, though.

> TLA+ works for the problems it is suitable for, try and extend past that and it simply fails.

TLA+ can specify anything that could be specified in mathematics. That there is no predefined set of floats is no more a problem than the one physicists face because mathematics has no "built-in" concept for metal or temperature. TLA+ doesn't even have any built in notions of procedures, memory, instructions, threads, IO, variables in the programming sense, or, indeed programs. It is a mathematical framework for describing the behaviour of discrete or hybrid continuous-discrete dynamical systems, just as ODEs describe continuous dynamical systems.

But you're talking about the verfication tools you can run on TLA+ spec, and like all verification tools, they have their limitations. I never claimed otherwise.

You are, however, absolutely right that it's difficult to specify probabilistic properties in TLA+.

[hwayne]

> No problem with floats or strings as far as specification goes. The particular verification tools you choose to run on your TLA+ spec may or may not have limitations in these areas, though.

I think it's disingenuous to say that TLA+ verifiers "may or may not have limitations" wrt floats when none of the available tools support floats. People should know going in that they won't be able to verify specs with floats!

[pron]

I'm not sure how a "spec with floats" differs from a spec with networks, RAM, 64-bit integers, multi-level cache, or any computing concept, none of which exists as a primitive in mathematics. A floating point number is a pair of integers, or sometimes we think about it as a real number plus some error, and TLAPS can check theorems about specifications that describe floating-point operations.

Of course, things can become more involved if you want to account for overflow, but overflow can get complicated even with integers.

[hwayne]

Those things, unlike floats, have approximable-enough facsimiles that you can verify instead. No tools support even fixed point decimals.

This has burned me before when I e.g needed to take the mean of a sequence.

[pron]

You say no tools but you can "verify floats" with TLAPS. I don't think that RAM or 64-bit integers have facsimiles in TLA+. They can be described mathematically in TLA+ to whatever level of detail you're interested in (e.g. you have to be pretty detailed when describing RAM when specifying a GC, and even more when specifying a CPU's memory-access subsystem), but so can floating point numbers. The least detailed description - say, RAM is just data - is not all that different from representing floats as reals (but that also requires TLAPS for verification).

The complications in describing machine-representable numbers also apply to integers, but these complications can be important, and the level of detail matters just as it matters when representing RAM or any other computing concept. Unlike, say, strings, there is no single "natural" mathematical representation of floating point numbers, just as there isn't one for software integers (integers work differently in C, Java, JS, and Zig; in some situations you may wish to ignore these differences, in others - not). You may want to think about floating point numbers as a real + error, or you may want to think about them as a mantissa-exponent pair, perhaps with overflow or perhaps without. The "right" representation of a floating point number highly depends on the properties you wish to examine, just like any other computing construct. These complications are essential, and they exist, pretty much in the same form, in other languages for formal mathematics.

[igornotarobot]

> TLA+ can specify anything that could be specified in mathematics.

You are talking about the logic of TLA+, that is, its mathematical definition. No tool for TLA+ can handle all of mathematics at the moment. The language was designed for specifying systems, not all of mathematics.

[nextos]

There are excellent probabilistic extensions to temporal logic out there that are very useful to uncover subtle performance bugs in protocol specifications, see e.g. what PRISM [1] and Storm [2] implement. That is not within the scope of TLA+.

Formal methods are really broad, ranging from lightweight type systems to theorem proving. Some techniques are fantastic for one type of problem but fail at others. This is quite natural, the same thing happens with different programming paradigms.

For example, what is adequate for a hard real-time system (timed automata) is useless for a typical CRUD application.

[1] https://www.prismmodelchecker.org

[2] https://www.stormchecker.org

[hwayne]

I really do wish that PRISM can one day add some quality of life features like "strings" and "functions"

(Then again, AIUI it's basically a thin wrapper over stochastic matrices, so maybe that's asking too much...)

[igornotarobot]

> TLA+ is not a silver bullet, and like all temporal logic, has constraints. > > You really have to be able to reduce your models to: “at some point in the future, this will happen," or "it will always be true from now on”

I think people get confused by the word "temporal" in the name of TLA+. Yes, it has temporal operators. If you throw them away, TLA+ (minus the temporal operators) would be still extremely useful for specifying the behavior of concurrent and distributed systems. I have been using TLA+ for writing specifications of distributed algorithms (e.g., distributed consensus) and checking them for about 6 years now. The question of liveness comes the last, and even then, the standard temporal logics are barely suitable for expressing liveness under partial synchrony. The value of temporal properties in TLA+ is overrated.

[pron]

The "temporal" in TLA+ isn't about □ and ⬦. It's about ' and the abstraction-refinment relation with stuttering at its core (contrasted with o and its non-stuttering meaning). Of course, you can't really specify anything in TLA+ without □ (unless you rely on TLC, which inserts the □ for you).

You cannot specify much in TLA+ without ' and □, andtThe "temporal" part of TLA+ - i.e. the TLA logic - is essential; but saying it's like "all temporal logics" is ignoring the abstraction-refinement relation, which is the heart of TLA+ (that's what ⇒, basic implication, in TLA+ means) and other temporal logics miss.

Of course, you could hypothetically use the + part of TLA+, the formalised set theory, to specify everything, but that would be very inconvenient.

[eru]

What you said certainly works, but I'm not sure computability is actually the biggest issue here?

Have a look at how SAT solvers or Mixed Integer Linear Programming solvers are used.

There you specify a clear goal (with your code), and then you let the solvers run. You can, but you don't need to, let the solvers run all the way to optimality. And the solvers are also allowed to use all kinds of heuristics to find their answers, but that doesn't impact the statement of your objective.

Compare that to how many people write code without solvers: the objective of what your code is trying to achieve is seldom clearly spelled out, and is instead mixed up with the how-to-compute bits, including all the compromises and heuristics you make to get a reasonable runtime or to accommodate some changes in the spec your boss asked for at the last minute.

Using a solver ain't formal verification, but it shows the same separation between spec and implementation.

Another benefit of formal verification, that you already imply: your formal verification doesn't have to determine the behaviour of your software, and you can have multiple specs simultaneously. But you can only have a single implementation active at a time (even if you use a high level implementation language.)

So you can add 'handling a user request must terminate in finite time' as a (partial) spec. It's an important property, but it tells you almost nothing about the required business logic. In addition you can add "users shouldn't be able to withdraw more than they deposited" (and other more complicated rules), and you only have to review these rules once, and don't have to touch them again, even when you implement a clever new money transfer routine.

[avmich]

Peter Norvig once proposed to consider a really large grammar, with trillion rules, which could simulate some practically small applications of more complex systems. Many programs in practice don't need to be written in Turing-complete languages, and can be proven to terminate.

[pron]

Writing in a language that guarantees termination is not very interesting in itself, as every existing program could automatically be translated into a non-Turing-complete language where the program is proven to terminate, yet behaves exactly the same: the language is the same as the original, only loops/rectursion ends the program after, say, 2^64 iterations. This, in itself, does not make programs any easier to analyse. In fact, a language that only has boolean variables, no arrays, no recursion, and loops of depth 2 at most is already instractable to verify. It is true that programs in Turing-complete languages cannot generally be verified in efficiently, but most non-Turing-complete languages also have this property.

Usually, when we're interested in termination proofs, what we're really interested in is a proof that the algorithm makes constant progress that converges on a solution.

[avmich]

I think the interesting progress in programs can generally be achieved for many programs, which take input and produce output and then terminate. For servers, which wait for requests, the situation seem to be different.

[atakan_gurkan]

This sounds very interesting. Do you have a reference?

[avmich]

Saw something like that once, couldn't find recently, sorry. Ask Peter?..

[mrkeen]

Can TLA+ prove anything about something you specify but don't execute?

[igornotarobot]

TLA+ is just a language for writing specifications (syntax + semantics). If you want to prove anything about it, at various degrees of confidence and effort, there are three tools:

- TLAPS is the interactive proof system that can automate some proof steps by delegating to SMT solvers: https://proofs.tlapl.us/doc/web/content/Home.html

- Apalache is the symbolic model checker that delegates verification to Z3. It can prove properties without executing anything, or rather, executing specs symbolically. For instance, it can do proofs via inductive invariants but only for bounded data structures and unbounded integers. https://apalache-mc.org/

- Finally, TLC is an enumerative model checker and simulator. It simply produces states and enumerates them. So it terminates only if the specification produces a finite number of states. It may sound like executing your specification, but it is a bit smarter, e.g., when checking invariants it will never visit the same state twice. This gives TLC the ability to reason about infinite executions. Confusingly, TLC does not have its own page, as it was the first working tool for TLA+. Many people believe that TLA+ is TLC: https://github.com/tlaplus/tlaplus

[pron]

> It may sound like executing your specification, but it is a bit smarter,

It's more than just "a bit smarter" I would say, and explicit state enumeration is nothing at all like executing a spec/program. For example, TLC will check in virtually zero time a spec that describes a nondeterministic choice of a single variable x being either 0 or 1 at every step (as there are only two states). The important aspect here isn't that each execution is of infinite length, but that there are an uncountable infinity of behaviours (executions) here. This is a completely different concept from execution, and it is more similar to abstract interpretation (where the meaning of a step isn't the next state but the set of all possible next states) than to concrete interpretation.

[pron]

You can write proofs in TLA+ about things you don't exectute and have them checked by the TLA+ proof assistant. But the most common aspect of that, which pretty much every TLA+ spec contains is nondeterminism, which is basically the ability to describe a system with details you don't know or care about. For example, you can describe "a program that sorts an array" without specifying how and then prove, say, that the median value ends up in the middle. The ability to specify what a program or a subroutine does without specifying how is what separates the expressive power of specification from programming. This extends not only to the program itself but to its environment. For example, it's very common in TLA+ to specify a network that can drop or reorder messages nondeterministically, and then prove that the system doesn't lose data despite that.

[anon-3988]

> To give a contrived example, let's say you want to state that a particular computation terminates. To do it in a clear and concise manner, you want to express the property of termination (and prove that the computation satisfies it), but that property is not, itself, computable. There are some ways around it, but as a rule, a specification language is more convenient when it can describe things that cannot be executed.

Do you really think it is going to be easier for the average developer to write a specification for their program that does not terminate

vs

Giving them a framework or a language that does not have for loop?

Edit: If by formal verification you mean type checking. That I very much agree.

[DennisP]

Maybe it's difficult for the average developer to write a formal specification, but the point of the article is that an AI can do it for them.