wangshanyw / CS263-Programming-Language-Project

CS263 Programming Language Project

Equivalence among 3 denotational semantics and small step semantics

---

1 Tasks and Progression

• A general theorem for proving equivalence between two recursively defined semantics
• Equivalence among three recursively defined denotational semantics: the normal one, the one with time, and the one with traces
• Equivalence between small step semantics and each of denotational semantics

2 Compilation for our work

• Compile Imp.v, RTClosure.v, ImpExt.v, ImpCF.v to found the environment
• Compile Denotational_Semantics_2.v,Denotational_Semantics_3.v,Equivalence_Semantics_1.v for further proof

3 Proof corresponding to files

• 3 definitions of denotational semantics
  • Imp.vcontains the normal one
  • Denotational_Semantics_1.v: the normal one denoted by skip_sem and so on
  • Denotational_Semantics_2.v: the one with time
  • Denotational_Semantics_3.v: the one with traces
• General Theorem and Proof on equivalence between each 2 Denotational Semantics with General Theorem
  • equiv_sem_final.v
• Proof on equivalence between each 2 Denotational Semantics

  • Actually, we don't use general theorem here. we suppose to prove that these three denotation semantics are truely equal, though it is really obviously. Thus that is why we just prove the equivlance of T1&T2 and T1&T3.

  • Equivalence_Denotational_Semantics_1_2.v
  • Equivalence_Denotational_Semantics_1_3.v
• Proof on equivalence between Small Steps Semantics and each of Denotational Semantics
  • Equivalence_Semantics_1.v: normal one
  • Equivalence_Semantics_2.v: the one with time
  • Equivalence_Semantics_3.v: the one with traces

4 Construction of General Theorem

In our proof, we view the abstract denotation as Type instead of each of the concrete denotational semantics.

• First, we suppose that our final goal is based on building the relation between denotation1 and denotation2 We want to construct a general theorem that given a relation R, if all corresponding statement pairs satisfy such a relation, the denotation1 and denotation2 satisfy relation R.
• Second, we induct 5 types of sem: skip_sem, asgn_sem, seq_sem, if_sem, loop_semas sem.
• Third, we define the denotation by sem.
• Fourth, we define the condition that means CSkip, CAss, CSeq, CIf, CWhile statements of 2 different denotations have relation R respectively.
• Finaly, we work out our general theorem:

  Theorem final_proof_of_equiv{denotation1: Type}{denotation2: Type}:
  forall (d1: sem denotation1) (d2: sem denotation2),
  forall c,
  forall (R : denotation1 -> denotation2 -> Prop),
  CSkip_equiv d1 d2 R->
  CAss_equiv d1 d2 R->
  CSeq_equiv d1 d2 R->
  CIf_equiv d1 d2 R->
  CWhile_equiv d1 d2 R->
  general_equiv(ceval_by_sem d1 c)(ceval_by_sem d2 c) R.
  

  Note that the relation R given in our proof is equivalence relation, so we can finally achieve the equivalence of two denotational semantics through this theorem.

5 Proof on the equivalence between 2 denotational semantics based on the general theorem

• First, we give the definition of equivalence relation between 2 concrete denotational semantics. For example,

  Definition sem_r(d1:state -> state -> Prop)(d2:state -> list state -> state -> Prop): Prop :=
  forall st1 st2, d1 st1 st2 -> exists sts,d2 st1 sts st2.
  

• Then, we can use the general theorem to prove the equivalence between 2 denotational semantics.

6 Proof on the equivlance bewteen 'sem' semantic and denotation semantic

• When we get the finally conclusions, we will find that they are about two sem-defined semantic(you will find it in equiv_sem_final.v), we still need to prove that they are equal to denotation semantic.
  For example.

  Lemma sem_equiv_t2:
  forall c st1 st2 t,
  ceval_by_sem (Sem T2.skip_sem T2.asgn_sem T2.seq_sem T2.if_sem T2.loop_sem) c st1 t st2 <-> T2.ceval c st1 t st2.
  

7 Proof on the equivalence between denotational semantics and small step semantics

• First, we work out the definition of equivalence between denotational semantics and small step semantics. Take the second denotational semantics as an example.

  Theorem semantic_equiv: forall c st1 st2, 
  (exists t: Z, ceval c st1 t st2) <-> multi_cstep (c, st1) (CSkip, st2).
  

• Then we prove it from two directions through induction method.

8 Contributors

F1903003 易文龙 @yiwenlong2001

F1903002 张若涵 @wangshanyw