From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,7a8ed246b4a23044,start
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.80.168 with SMTP id s8mr1919791pax.28.1345491700742;
        Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p10ni114802604pbh.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-peer1!btnet!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!plix.pl!newsfeed2.plix.pl!news.mi.ras.ru!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ben Hocking <benjaminhocking@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Mechanisms for proving rules in .rlu files
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <4365f56f-d4d3-440b-87bb-5cfe868608f5@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8.25.3.17
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1345235987 22356 127.0.0.1 (17 Aug 2012 20:39:47
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:39:47 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=8.25.3.17;
 posting-account=hKGsDAoAAAC9HB_9misjykjawYQeT_yf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-08-17T13:39:47-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I've created a fairly large .rlu file, and I'm newly aware of the "sparkrul=
es" tool, but I haven't found a way to prove the validity of the rules in m=
y .rlu file. For now, I've written a converter that converts the .rlu file =
to a PVS theory and I'm working on proving the rules there, but this conver=
ter makes a few assumptions that are valid for my rules (all variables are =
integers or booleans, I'm only using a may_be_replaced_by and may_be_deduce=
d_from, etc.) and of course might have flaws in it that I haven't detected =
yet.

What mechanisms do others use for proving user-defined rules?

-Ben