A Does this computation satisfy LTL formulas?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter alma359
  • Start date Start date
alma359
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
I have two LTL formulas.

The first one is (p U q) U r
The second one is p U (q U r)

I know the computation {r}ᵂ satisfies both formulas, computation {p}{q}{p}{q}{r}ᵂ satisfies only the first formula, computation {p}{r}ᵂ satisfies only the second one and computations {p}ᵂ or ∅ᵂ don't satisfy any of them.

Currently I'm learning LTL and I tried using AI tools to find more computations that satisfy the formulas, but I got confused because of mixed results. For example the computation {p}{q}{r}ᵂ. According to AI tools it satisfies both formulas but I believe it only satisfies the first formula, and does not satisfy the second formula, because p is not satisfied at all times before r (p is satisfied at t = 0 but not at t = 1).

If someone could confirm if I am right or wrong it would be very helpful.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!. What is LTL? This seems to deal with Sentence Logic.
 
Linear temporal logic
 
alma359 said:
Currently I'm learning LTL and I tried using AI tools to find more computations that satisfy the formulas, but I got confused because of mixed results. For example the computation {p}{q}{r}ᵂ. According to AI tools it satisfies both formulas but I believe it only satisfies the first formula, and does not satisfy the second formula, because p is not satisfied at all times before r (p is satisfied at t = 0 but not at t = 1).
Please keep in mind that we do not allow AI as a reference in the technical forums here. That is expressly against the PF rules at this time.
 

Thread 'Roulette wheel physics and probability'

Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
View full post »
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'

Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'

The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
View full post »

Similar threads

I Understanding extinction probability in simple GWP
Replies
1
Views
2K
I An Elementary Observation Regarding Definability
Replies
13
Views
2K
Cubic equation solutions form
Replies
2
Views
2K
B How does r∪(-p∩q∩-r) simplify to r∪(-p∩q) ?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Ways to put n balls in m boxes such that exactly k boxes are empty?
Replies
29
Views
3K
A Quadrupole radiation formula for gravity
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Counterexample Required (Standard Notations)
Replies
16
Views
3K
I How Does Probability Affect the Total Number of Coupons a Customer Can Expect?
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Please help with bool algebra and logic things
Replies
2
Views
2K
Computing conditional extinction probabilities for pollen cells
Replies
1
Views
996

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top