C LAUS B RABRAND S EMANTICS (Q1,’06) S EP 7, 2006 C LAUS B RABRAND © 2005-2006, University of Aarhus [ [email protected] ] [ brabrand

CLAUS BRABRAND SEMANTICS (Q1,’06) SEP 7, 2006

CLAUS BRABRAND

© 2005-2006, University of Aarhus

[ [email protected] ] [ http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/ ]

SEMANTICS (Q1,’06)

WEEK 2: ”STRUCTURAL OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS”

CLAUS BRABRAND[ 2 ]

SEMANTICS (Q1,’06) SEP 7, 2006

Week 2 - Outline

Syntax vs. Semantics Virtual Machine Semantics Structural Operational Semantics

Expressions (Exp) Big-step vs. small-step semantics Side-effects Behavior and Equivalence, …

Boolean Expressions (BExp) Lazy evaluation, …

Commands (Com) …

CLAUS BRABRAND[ 3 ]


Active vs. Passive Learning: Correlation:

Investment ~ Benefit Example:

Studying ~ Exam result

Active vs. Passive Learning

Main Entry: os·mo·sis Pronunciation: äz-'mO-s&s, äs-Function: nounEtymology: New Latin, short for endosmosis1 : movement of a solvent through a semipermeable membrane (as of a living cell) […]2 : a process of absorption […] usually effortless often unconscious assimilation <learned a number of languages by osmosis >

Active Learning Passive Learningaka. "Learning-by-Osmosis"

vs.

CLAUS BRABRAND[ 4 ]


"Learning by Osmosis"

It’s Amazing…

Do Active Learning: Study = read + make exercises + reflect

(for your own sake)!

“Learn while you sleep!”

“The Semantics Pillow”

Only$19,95


WHY SEMANTICS?!?

Keywords:

Why bother with semantics?!?

CLAUS BRABRAND[ 6 ]


Why bother learning Semantics?!?

Why Semantics?!?

Fully understand

a prog. lang.

Semantics-preserving

prog. changes

designnewprog. lang.s

rapidly

learn new

prog. lang.debuggingprograms

cross-

compilationautomatedoptimization

automatederror detection

writefaster

programs

write"better"

programs

$$

$$$$

Pass thiscourse


SYNTAX VS SEMANTICS

Keywords:

Structure vs. Meaning

CLAUS BRABRAND[ 8 ]


Syntax and Semantics

Syntax: = Structure

vs.

Semantics: = Meaning

"Eats shoots and leaves"

"Eats shoots and leaves"

"Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously"-- N. Chomsky (1957)

The syntactic structure affects our interpretation

; ;

Has legal syntactic structure, but no meaning

( )

, ,

CLAUS BRABRAND[ 9 ]


Syntax vs. Semantics (cont'd)

In natural languages (English, Danish, ...): Syntax Semantics

In programming languages (C, Java, ML, ...): Syntax Semantics

By design (for very good reasons...):

"Time flies like an arrow "

"Fruit flies like a banana "

---------N --------V -----------N-------P

-------------------N -------V ---------------N

But, if I replace

two nouns(syntactic)

replace noun replace noun

CLAUS BRABRAND[ 10 ]


Level of Abstraction

Semantic specification(s):

Appropriate level of abstraction: ...so that we can use the semantics for something !!!

is_busy is_busy is_done

high

er le

vel o

f ab

stra

ctio

n

..., transistor57824 = 5V , transistor57825 = 0V , ...

..., transistor57824 = 5V , transistor57825 = 5V , ...

zzz



Glasses of Abstraction…

It’s Amazing…

See behind concrete details; Perceive only what is relevant and at the appropriate

level of abstraction)!

Only$12,95

“See only the relevant!”

“The Glasses of Abstraction”


THE LANGUAGE “L”

Keywords:

Expressions, Boolean Expressions, Commands, Abstract Syntax, Concrete Syntax



The Language ”L” Basic Syntactic Sets:

Truthvalues: Set ranged over by: t , t’, t0, …

Numbers: Set ranged over by: m, n, …

Variables: Set ranged over by: v, v’,

…

T = {tt, ff}

N = {0, 1, 2, …}

VAR = {a, b, c, …, z}

Meta-variables



Alice in Wonderland

Different levels of abstraction: Things ‘A Sitting on a Gate’ Names of things ‘The Aged Aged Man.’ Things are called something ‘Ways and Means’ Names are called something ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’

"[...] The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’”

“Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.“No, you don’t understand,” the Kinght said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”

“Then I ought to have said, ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.

“No, you oughtn’t: that’s another thing. The song is called ‘Ways and Means’: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”

“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A Sitting on a Gate’: and the tune’s my own invention.”



The Language ”L” Derived Syntactic Sets:

Arithmetic Expressions (e Exp):

Boolean Expressions (b BExp):

Commands (c Com):

e ::= n | v | e + e’ | e – e’ | e e’

b ::= t | e = e’ | b or b’ | ~ b

c ::= nil | v := e | c ; c’ | if b then c else c’ | while b do c


VIRTUAL MACHINE SEMANTICS

Keywords:

The “SMC” Machine, Virtual Machine Semantics, Machine Code Semantics

'The world before 1981'



Value Stack: Set ranged over by: S

Memories: Functions ranged over by: M

Control Stack: Set ranged over by: C

SMC Machine (Trans. Sys. Semantics): Configurations:

Virtual Machines (SMC Expressions)

= Value Stack Memories Control Stack

( T N ...)*

VAR N

( Exp { +, –, } ...)*

Initially commands/expressions, and later bits of commands/expr's

For accumulating partial resultsand other pieces needed



Configurations:

Notation: , M VAR N

i.e., “Memory Update” More common syntax for this:

Notation: Memory Update

=

( T N ... )* VAR N ( Exp { +, –, } ...)*

m , if v = v’M’(v’) = M(v’) , otherwise

M[m/v]

M[m/v] = M’ where

M[mv]



Virtual Machine Transitions

Configurations:

Transitions: Defined "by case" according to top of control stack:

[case n]: < S , M , n C > < n S , M , C >

[case v]: < S , M , v C > < M(v) S , M , C >

[case ee’]: < S , M , e e’ C > < S , M , e e’ C >

[case ]: < m’ m S , M , C > < n S , M , C > …where n = m m’

Syntactic ‘+’

Semantic ‘+’

=

( T N ... )* VAR N ( Exp { +, –, } ...)*



Virtual Machine: Example

Given program: and memory:(((x + 1) – y) 7)

< , M, (((x + 1) – y) 7) >

< , M, (x + 1) ; y ; – ; 7 ; >

< , M, ((x + 1) – y) ; 7 ; >

M = [x=9,y=4]

< , M, x ; 1 ; + ; y ; – ; 7 ; >

< , M, ((x + 1) – y) ; 7 ; > < , M, (x + 1) ; y ; – ; 7 ; >

< , M, x ; 1 ; + ; y ; – ; 7 ; >

< 9, M, 1 ; + ; y ; – ; 7 ; >

< 9, M, 1 ; + ; y ; – ; 7 ; > < 1 ; 9, M, + ; y ; – ; 7 ; >

< 9 ; 1, M, + ; y ; – ; 7 ; > < 10, M, y ; – ; 7 ; >

< 10, M, y ; – ; 7 ; > < 4 ; 10, M, – ; 7 ; >

< 4 ; 10, M, – ; 7 ; > < 6, M, 7 ; >

< 6, M, 7 ; > < 7 ; 6, M, >

< 7 ; 6, M, > < 42, M, >



VM Semantics: Major Drawbacks!

Advantage: Easy to implement (and efficient)

Drawbacks:

Non-intuitive Too concrete (e.g., stack for computation fragments) Indirect semantics (not syntax directed) Computational step?

“High-level language understood in terms of low-level machine code”

“Many other machine along these lines […]. They all have a tendency to pull the syntax into pieces or at any rate to wander around the syntax creating various complex symbolic structures which do not seem particularly forced by the demands of the language itself”

- Gordon Plotkin, ‘81


ARITHMETIC EXPRESSIONS

Keywords:

structural operational semantics (sos) big-step & small-step semantics, side-effects



Given program: and memory:

VM: Processing of Additions

< , M, ((1 + (2 + 3)) + 4) > < , M, (1 + (2 + 3)) 4 + >

< , M, (1 + (2 + 3)) 4 + > < , M, 1 (2 + 3) + 4 + >

< , M, 1 (2 + 3) + 4 + > < 1, M, (2 + 3) + 4 + >

< 1, M, (2 + 3) + 4 + > < 1, M, 2 3 + + 4 + >

< 1, M, 2 3 + + 4 + > < 2 1, M, 3 + + 4 + >

< 2 1, M, 3 + + 4 + > < 3 2 1, M, + + 4 + >

< 3 2 1, M, + + 4 + > < 5 1, M, + 4 + >

< 5 1, M, + 4 + > < 6, M, 4 + >

< 6, M, 4 + > < 4 6, M, + >

< 4 6, M, + > < 10, M, >

((1 + (2 + 3)) + 4) M

rearrange

rearrange

addition1!

addition2!

rearrange

addition3!

rearrange

rearrange

rearrange

rearrange

12 3

Note: Only three transitions are of real interest as “system events”



Ideally we would like:

…i.e., the following transition sequence:

Ideal Processing of Additions

((1 + (2 + 3)) + 4) ((1 + 5) + 4)

explanation

((1 + 5) + 4)

explanation

(6 + 4)

(6 + 4)

explanation

10

((1 + (2 + 3)) + 4)

explanation

((1 + 5) + 4)

explanation

(6 + 4)

explanation

10

(aka. derivation sequence)(aka. reduction sequence)



Informal vs. Formal Specification

Informally: “One evaluates from left to right...”

Description (pseudo-formally): CONSTANTS:

Any constant, n, is already evaluated (with itself as value)

SUMS: Step 1. Evaluate to obtain result ; Step 2. Evaluate to obtain result ; Step 3. Add and to obtain final result .

n

e0 + e1

e0 n0

e1 n1

n0 n1 m



Inference System Semantics

Inference System Semantics: Abbreviate as

Meaning: “e terminates and evaluates to v”

e v

‘L’ Exp N

(e,v) ‘L’

Q: Did I just solve the halting problem here?!?

A: No; nobody can decide “e v” automatically!

A: Actually, for Exp termination is decidable…



Inference System Sem. (cont’d)

Inference System Semantics:

e0 + e1 mm = n0 + n1

e0 n0 e1 n1[SUM][CON] n n

‘L’ Exp N

Syntactic ‘+’Semantic ‘+’

Live exercise: explain difference between syntactic and semantic entities above...



Example Revisited (big-step)

Inference Tree:

((1 + (2 + 3)) + 4) 10

(1 + (2 + 3)) 6 4 4

1 1 (2 + 3) 5

2 2 3 3

e0 + e1 mm = n0 + n1

e0 n0 e1 n1[SUM][CON] n n

[SUM]

[CON]

[CON]

[SUM]

[SUM]

[CON] [CON]“big-step semantics”

“small-step semantics”vs.



Small-step Description

Description:

CONSTANTS: Any constant, n, is already evaluated (with itself as value)

SUMS: Step 1. If is not a constant,

evaluate it (one step) to obtain result ; Step 2. If is a constant, but is not,

evaluate it (one step) to obtain result ; Step 3. If and are both constants,

add them to obtain result, say .

n

e0 + e1

e0

e0’

e0 e1

e1’

e0 e1

m



Small-step Formalization

Transition System Semantics: Configurations: Final Configurations: Transition Relation:

Abbreviate as Meaning: “e evaluates to e’ in one step”

L := Exp

TL := N Exp

L Exp Exp

e e’(e,e’) ‘L’



Small-step Semantics

Transition System Semantics:

L := Exp

TL := N Exp

L Exp Exp

[SUM1]

e0 + e1 e0’ + e1

e0 e0’

[SUM2]

n0 + e1 n0 + e1’

e1 e1’

[SUM3]

n0 + n1 mm = n0 + n1

We call this a STRUCTURAL OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS



Example Revisited (small-step)

Transition sequence (with explanation):

((1 + (2 + 3)) + 4) ((1 + 5) + 4)

(1 + (2 + 3)) (1 + 5)

(2 + 3) 5

[SUM1]

[SUM2]

[SUM3]

“order of discovery”

find predicates make conclusions



Transition Sequence Information

A transition sequence

…specifies two things:

1. A “sequence of steps” themselves (here additions)

2. …and reasons why they should be performed

e e’ e’’ … m

((1 + (2 + 3)) + 4)

explanation

((1 + 5) + 4)



Adding Variables

Language L’: Arithmetic Expressions (e Exp)

Structural Operational Semantics: Configurations:

Final Configurations:

Transition Relation…

e ::= n | v | e0 + e1

L’ := Exp Store

TL’ := L’

Note the change in terminology: Store <--- Memory <--- MThe term Store is more generally accepted (as an abstraction of a computer’s physical memory)

Store = Var N (= Memory)where

A configuration now looks like: <e,><e,> L’ <e’,'>



Small-step Semantics w/ Stores

Structural Operational Semantics (w/ Stores):

[SUM1]< e0 + e1 , > < e0’ + e1 , ’ >

< e0 , > < e0’ , ’ >

[SUM2]

[SUM3]< n0 + n1 , > < m , >

m = n0 + n1

< n0 + e1 , > < n0 + e1’ , ’ >< e1 , > < e1’ , ’ >

< v , > < m , >[VAR]

Store = Var Nm = (v)



In fact: we have no Side-Effects!

No side-effects!

[SUM1]< e0 + e1 , > < e0’ + e1 , ’ >

< e0 , > < e0’ , ’ >

[SUM2]

[SUM3]< n0 + n1 , > < m , >

m = n0 + n1

< n0 + e1 , > < n0 + e1’ , ’ >< e1 , > < e1’ , ’ >

< v , > < m , >[VAR]

Store = Var Nm = (v)

e,: <e,> <e’,’> => = ’Easily proved by structural induction [later…]



Explicit Absence of Side-effects

SOS Semantics:

[SUM1]

|_ e0 + e1 e0’ + e1

|_ e0 e0’

[SUM2]

[SUM3] |_ n0 + n1 m

m = n0 + n1

|_ n0 + e1 n0 + e1’

|_ e1 e1’

|_ v m

[VAR]Store = Var Nm = (v)

|_ e e’ <e,> <e’,>

Note: Absence of side-effects is now explicit

for



Explicit Absence of Side-effects

Terminology (more common):

[SUM1]

|_ e0 + e1 e0’ + e1

|_ e0 e0’

[SUM2]

[SUM3] |_ n0 + n1 m

m = n0 + n1

|_ n0 + e1 n0 + e1’

|_ e1 e1’

|_ v m

[VAR]Env = Var N (= Store)m = (v)

Note the change in terminology: Env <--- Store <---



Exp: Behavior and Equivalence

Definitions: DEF: "Behavior" (eval):

Note: eval is only a partial function(e.g., if we have division; div-by-zero)

DEF: "Program equivalence" (''):

Examples:

eval(e,) = m <=>def <e,> E* <m,>

e e’ <=>def : eval(e,) = eval(e’,)

1+1 2 x+y y+x z+z 2*z

Live Exercise: Does "" depend on the semantics (if so, how/where)?


BOOLEAN EXPRESSIONS

Keywords:

eager evaluation, lazy evaluation,

parallel evaluation



Boolean Expressions BExp

Language B: Boolean Expressions (b BExp):


where

Final Configurations:

Transition Relation… short-hand for

b ::= t | e = e’ | b or b’ | ~ b

B := BExp Env

TB := B

Env = Var N

|_ b B b’

We could also have used a Store (we actually have to if BExp had had side-effects)

((b,),(b’,)) B



Boolean Expressions BExp (cont’d)

Structural Operational Semantics:

Note that: The (this) boolean expression transition system...:

…uses the arithmetic expression transition system…:

...and does it transitively (E*) in “one step”!

|_ e0 = e1 B t

[EQ]B |_ e0 E

* n0 |_ e1 E* n1

B , TB , B

E , TE , E

t = tt, n0 = n1

ff, n0 n1

See [Plotkin, p. 42-44] for alternative semantics (with a smaller step size)



Disjunction: “or”

SOS for Disjunction (“or”):

What about the boolean expression: ...?!?

|_ b0 or b1 B b0’ or b1

|_ b0 B b0’[OR1]B

|_ t0 or b1 B t0 or b1’

|_ b1 B b1’[OR2]B

|_ t0 or t1 B t

[OR3]B t = t0 t1

"tt or b"

Live Exercise:syntax vs semanticoperators?



Disjunction: Lazy Evaluation

Lazy Semantics for Disjunction (“or”):

|_ b0 or b1 L b0’ or b1

|_ b0 L b0’[OR1]L

[OR2]L

|_ ff or b1 L b1

[OR3]L

b: tt or b tt |_ tt or b1 L tt...exploiting:

b: ff or b b

...exploiting:



Eager vs. Lazy Semantics for “or”

Eager Semantics: ‘B’ Lazy Semantics: ‘L’

Relationship: ? Stuck configurations? …e.g. div-by-zero? Assignment? Non-termination?

b := tt or (3 = 1-2)

b,: |_ b B* t <=> |_ b L

* t

b := tt or (1 = 2/0)

b := tt or (x := tt)“side-effects”

b := tt or loop()



For the language, BExp, we have that:

Whereas:

Eager vs. Lazy Semantics (cont’d)

b,: <b,> B* <t,’> ==> <b,> L

* <t,”>

b,: <b,> B* <t,’> <== <b,> L

* <t,”>

Can be proved by structural induction [later…]

Easily disproved by a counterexample (e.g. )


b := tt or (3 = 1-2)

b,: |_ b B* t <=> |_ b L

* t

b := tt or (1 = 2/0)


b := tt or loop()

b := tt or (3 = 1-2)



Parallel Evaluation of Disjunction

Live exercise: Evaluate BExps non-deterministically (via. interleaving

or in parallel) left / right operands to or:

[Think 3 mins; then interactively on the blackboard]

‘P’

b := tt or (3 = 1-2)

b := tt or (1 = 2/0)


b := tt or loop()


b,: |_ b B* t <=> |_ b P

* t



Negation: “~b”

Boolean Expressions (b BExp):

Live exercise: [Think 3 mins; then interactively on the blackboard]

b ::= t | e = e’ | b or b’ | ~ b



BExp: Behavior and Equivalence

Definitions: DEF: "Boolean Expression Behavior":

Note: eval is only a partial function(e.g., if we have division; div-by-zero)

DEF: "Boolean Expression Equivalence":

Examples:

eval(b,) = t <=>def <b,> B* t

b b’ <=>def : eval(b,) = eval(b’,)

b ~~b 1 = 2 ff x = x tt


COMMANDS

Keywords:

Assignments, Conditionals, Loops,

Control flow



SOS of Commands

Commands (c Com):


where

Final Configurations: (?)

Transition Relation… for


C := (Com Store)

TC := C

Store = Var N

<c,> C <c’,’>

Here we need a Store (since we have to model side-effects)

((c,),(c’,’)) C

Problem: how do we end computation?!?



SOS of Commands (cont’d)

Commands (c Com):


where

Final Configurations: (!)

Transition Relation… for


C := (Com Store) Store

TC := Store

Store = Var N

<c,> C <c’,’> ((c,),(c’,’)) C

<c,> C ’ ((c,),’) C(!)forand

Here we need a Store (since we have to model side-effects)



Nil and Assignment (SOS)

SOS for nil:

SOS for assignment:

v := e

< v := e , > C ’

< e , > A* < m , >

[ASS]C

’ = [m/v]

< nil , > C [NIL]C



Sequential Composition (SOS)

SOS for Sequential Composition:

Diagramatically: “(Control) flow-charts”

c0 ; c1

< c0 ; c1 , > C < c0’ ; c1 , ’ >

< c0 , > C < c0’ , ’ >[SEQ1]C

< c0 ; c1 , > C < c1 , ’ >

< c0 , > C ’[SEQ2]C

c c’



If-then-else (SOS)

SOS for “if-then-else”:


if b then c else c’

< if b then c else c’ , > C < c , >

< b , > B* < tt , >[IF1]C

< if b then c else c’ , > C < c’ , >

< b , > B* < ff , >[IF2]C

c

c’

b

tt

ff



While-do (SOS)

SOS for “while-do”:


while b do c

< while b do c, > C < c ; while b do c , >

< b , > B* < tt , >[WH1]C

< while b do c , > C

< b , > B* < ff , >[WH2]C

tt

ff

cb



Com: Behavior and Equivalence

Definitions: DEF: "Command Behavior":

Note: exec is only a partial function(e.g. non-termination, div-by-zero, …)

DEF: "Command Equivalence":

Examples:

exec(c,) = ’ <=>def <c,> C* ’

c c’ <=>def : exec(c,) = exec(c’,)

if b then c else c’ if ~b then c’ else c

while ff do c nil



"Three minutes paper"

Please spend three minutes writing down the most important things that you have learned today (now).

After 1 dayAfter 1 week

After 3 weeksAfter 2 weeks

Immediately




Next week: big-step vs. small-step,errors, type checking

Any Questions?

C LAUS B RABRAND S EMANTICS (Q1,’06) S EP 7, 2006 C LAUS B RABRAND © 2005-2006, University of Aarhus [ [email protected] ] [ brabrand

Documents

c laus b rabrand s emantics

s function

s yntax vs s emantics

w hy s emantics

semantics syntax

syntax semantics

semantics contd

semantics pillow