What TLA+ can and can't check

singron 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I love this. This is great to read if you are trying to use TLA+ for something.

In a different vein, another thing TLA+ isn't great at is modeling atomics and in particular weak-memory semantics or anything that's not sequentially consistent. If you translate your algorithm to pcal, it will run as if it was sequentially consistent. If you need to model non-sequential-consistency, then that needs to be spelled out with explicit logic to TLA+, which is probably too complicated and error-prone to do by hand. The C/C++/Rust memory models permit a lot of wacky stuff. I imagine you need to add read caches and writeback buffers for each variable with cache-flushing instructions at appropriate points, but maybe there is a more elegant way to do it.

If you use rust, miri and loom both have analyzers that can check some non-sequentially-consistent behavior (and loom doesn't actually implement sequential-consistency at all).

▲

sourdecor an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I discovered Quint[0] due to this comment[1] on HN. Quint is "an executable specification language [which works in JavaScript] with delightful tooling based on the temporal logic of actions (TLA)". I think it is awesome and anybody interested in TLA+ should check it out.

[0]: https://github.com/quint-co/quint

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49865720

▲

rrook an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i think part of this is a shortcoming of our programming languages. generally, languages allow for the expression of partial graphs, which makes the verification problem technically challenging. my take is that a language that only exposes closed-graph semantics could help bridge the gap between the model and the implementation, even if not absolute.

	▲	bunderbunder 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What you say reminds me of the "Von Neumann Languages Lack Useful Mathematical Properties" section in John Backus's Turing award paper. One of his criticisms of what we would now call imperative languages is that they make it exceedingly difficult to formally prove facts about a program. https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/359576.359579

▲

adamddev1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Great write-up. People keep saying "we can just write tests" or more recently "we can use formal verification," thinking these are sufficient safeguards we can use and then relegate all the implementation to LLMs. But the fact is that probabilistic guessing machines can't save them. People can't escape the need to actually understand the things they are building.

	▲	_flux 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		These probabilistic guessing machines are pretty great for creating these formal models, e.g. TLA+, and then guessing if the implementation aligns with the spec.. In fact, it's my go-to tool for constructing soft guardrails for the model, so the design it's going to implement is logically sound. Same as for people: it's easier to make something working when you have a spec that is working. Of course, it still allows the risk that you don't actually get to understand it.

▲

westurner 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From "How did software get so reliable without proof? (1996) [pdf]" (2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42425617 :

> From "The Future of TLA+ [pdf]" (2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41385141 :

>> Formal methods including TLA+ also can't/don't prevent or can only workaround side channels in hardware and firmware that is not verified. But that's a different layer.

>> Things formal methods shouldn't be expected to find: Floating point arithmetic non-associativity, side-channels

▲

ChrisArchitect an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The internet discovers TLA+. Now what?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49863600