I've been writing toy modules in the course of learning TLA, and in the course of debugging one, I noticed that priming a variable defined in an "exists in" expression seems to result in a next-state expression that's always false. I've flipped through [what I think are] the relevant sections of Specifying Systems and searched around online, but haven't been able to figure out whether this is due to a limitation in TLC or if there's some mathematical subtlety that I'm missing that makes my spec incorrect.
For example:
-------------------------- MODULE ExistsInPrime --------------------------
VARIABLES x
Init ==
x = TRUE
Advance(next, this) ==
next' = ~this
ThisAdvances ==
\* This next-state progression works fine.
\E y \in {x}: Advance(x, y)
ThisDeadlocks ==
\* This next-state progression is never true.
\E y \in {x}: Advance(y, y)
Next == ThisDeadlocks
==========================================================================
If anyone could help me understand why ThisDeadlocks and ThisAdvances produce different results in TLC, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
Branen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tlaplus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tlaplus+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tla...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tlaplus.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tla...@googlegroups.com.