If there's one thing I dislike, it's having to admit I'm wrong. Thanks to @oe1cxw for pointing out the flaw in my logic aggregation method. You can read about it here: http://zipcpu.com/formal/2018/12/18/skynet.html …
-
-
Simple rule of thumb: assuming something that's not a primary input is fishy. Accidental overconstraints are also why covers are important: is that interesting – and potentially buggy – state actually reachable?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Isn't it enough to just convert assumptions of a submodule into assertions and just remove the assertions completely? This way you check your assumptions. What extra benefit do the submodule assumptions-turned-assertions have?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This approach would work great for both bounded model checks and simulation. However, during induction the submodule assertions are required to guide the solver into a valid state.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sounds off to me. In you article as option 3 you mentioned leaving the submodule assertions as assertions. How can these be used when proving other assertions?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Should I interpret this as to mean that you do use previously proven assertions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.