Models for software verification : proving program correctness

The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In p...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Sitnikovski, Boro [verfasserIn] Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija [verfasserIn] Stojcevska, Biljana [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	software verification software verification models software verification platforms

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: UTMS journal of economics - Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje), Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010, 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:12 ; year:2021 ; number:1 ; month:06 ; pages:32-39

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen

Katalog-ID:	1763748235

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a2200265 4500
001	1763748235
003	DE-627
005	20240209123411.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	210720s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10419/281889 \|2 hdl
035			\|a (DE-627)1763748235
035			\|a (DE-599)KXP1763748235
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rda
041			\|a eng
084			\|a M42 \|a M49 \|2 jelc
100	1		\|a Sitnikovski, Boro \|e verfasserin \|0 (DE-588)1234420422 \|0 (DE-627)1759226971 \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Models for software verification \|b proving program correctness \|c Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today.
650		4	\|a software verification \|7 (dpeaa)DE-206
650		4	\|a software verification models \|7 (dpeaa)DE-206
650		4	\|a software verification platforms \|7 (dpeaa)DE-206
700	1		\|a Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Stojcevska, Biljana \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|a Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje) \|t UTMS journal of economics \|d Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010 \|g 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 \|h Online-Ressource \|w (DE-627)663603412 \|w (DE-600)2616961-7 \|w (DE-576)347284604 \|x 1857-6982 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:12 \|g year:2021 \|g number:1 \|g month:06 \|g pages:32-39
856	4	0	\|u https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf \|x Verlag \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889 \|x Resolving-System \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_U
912			\|a GBV_ILN_26
912			\|a ISIL_DE-206
912			\|a SYSFLAG_1
912			\|a GBV_KXP
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2129
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4046
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4326
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2403
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2403
912			\|a ISIL_DE-LFER
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 12 \|j 2021 \|e 1 \|c 6 \|h 32-39
980			\|2 26 \|1 01 \|x 0206 \|b 3956169859 \|y x1z \|z 20-07-21
980			\|2 2403 \|1 01 \|x DE-LFER \|b 3965084003 \|c 00 \|f --%%-- \|d --%%-- \|e n \|j --%%-- \|y l01 \|z 11-08-21
981			\|2 2403 \|1 01 \|x DE-LFER \|r https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf

Indexfelder

author_variant	b s bs l g i lgi b s bs
matchkey_str	article:18576982:2021----::oesosfwrvr
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
publishDate	2021
allfields	10419/281889 hdl (DE-627)1763748235 (DE-599)KXP1763748235 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng M42 M49 jelc Sitnikovski, Boro verfasserin (DE-588)1234420422 (DE-627)1759226971 aut Models for software verification proving program correctness Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today. software verification (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification models (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification platforms (dpeaa)DE-206 Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija verfasserin aut Stojcevska, Biljana verfasserin aut Enthalten in Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje) UTMS journal of economics Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 Online-Ressource (DE-627)663603412 (DE-600)2616961-7 (DE-576)347284604 1857-6982 nnns volume:12 year:2021 number:1 month:06 pages:32-39 https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf Verlag kostenfrei https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889 Resolving-System kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_26 ISIL_DE-206 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_2403 GBV_ILN_2403 ISIL_DE-LFER AR 12 2021 1 6 32-39 26 01 0206 3956169859 x1z 20-07-21 2403 01 DE-LFER 3965084003 00 --%%-- --%%-- n --%%-- l01 11-08-21 2403 01 DE-LFER https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf
spelling	10419/281889 hdl (DE-627)1763748235 (DE-599)KXP1763748235 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng M42 M49 jelc Sitnikovski, Boro verfasserin (DE-588)1234420422 (DE-627)1759226971 aut Models for software verification proving program correctness Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today. software verification (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification models (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification platforms (dpeaa)DE-206 Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija verfasserin aut Stojcevska, Biljana verfasserin aut Enthalten in Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje) UTMS journal of economics Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 Online-Ressource (DE-627)663603412 (DE-600)2616961-7 (DE-576)347284604 1857-6982 nnns volume:12 year:2021 number:1 month:06 pages:32-39 https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf Verlag kostenfrei https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889 Resolving-System kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_26 ISIL_DE-206 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_2403 GBV_ILN_2403 ISIL_DE-LFER AR 12 2021 1 6 32-39 26 01 0206 3956169859 x1z 20-07-21 2403 01 DE-LFER 3965084003 00 --%%-- --%%-- n --%%-- l01 11-08-21 2403 01 DE-LFER https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf
allfields_unstemmed	10419/281889 hdl (DE-627)1763748235 (DE-599)KXP1763748235 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng M42 M49 jelc Sitnikovski, Boro verfasserin (DE-588)1234420422 (DE-627)1759226971 aut Models for software verification proving program correctness Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today. software verification (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification models (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification platforms (dpeaa)DE-206 Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija verfasserin aut Stojcevska, Biljana verfasserin aut Enthalten in Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje) UTMS journal of economics Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 Online-Ressource (DE-627)663603412 (DE-600)2616961-7 (DE-576)347284604 1857-6982 nnns volume:12 year:2021 number:1 month:06 pages:32-39 https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf Verlag kostenfrei https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889 Resolving-System kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_26 ISIL_DE-206 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_2403 GBV_ILN_2403 ISIL_DE-LFER AR 12 2021 1 6 32-39 26 01 0206 3956169859 x1z 20-07-21 2403 01 DE-LFER 3965084003 00 --%%-- --%%-- n --%%-- l01 11-08-21 2403 01 DE-LFER https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf
allfieldsGer	10419/281889 hdl (DE-627)1763748235 (DE-599)KXP1763748235 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng M42 M49 jelc Sitnikovski, Boro verfasserin (DE-588)1234420422 (DE-627)1759226971 aut Models for software verification proving program correctness Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today. software verification (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification models (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification platforms (dpeaa)DE-206 Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija verfasserin aut Stojcevska, Biljana verfasserin aut Enthalten in Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje) UTMS journal of economics Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 Online-Ressource (DE-627)663603412 (DE-600)2616961-7 (DE-576)347284604 1857-6982 nnns volume:12 year:2021 number:1 month:06 pages:32-39 https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf Verlag kostenfrei https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889 Resolving-System kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_26 ISIL_DE-206 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_2403 GBV_ILN_2403 ISIL_DE-LFER AR 12 2021 1 6 32-39 26 01 0206 3956169859 x1z 20-07-21 2403 01 DE-LFER 3965084003 00 --%%-- --%%-- n --%%-- l01 11-08-21 2403 01 DE-LFER https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf
allfieldsSound	10419/281889 hdl (DE-627)1763748235 (DE-599)KXP1763748235 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng M42 M49 jelc Sitnikovski, Boro verfasserin (DE-588)1234420422 (DE-627)1759226971 aut Models for software verification proving program correctness Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today. software verification (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification models (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification platforms (dpeaa)DE-206 Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija verfasserin aut Stojcevska, Biljana verfasserin aut Enthalten in Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje) UTMS journal of economics Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 Online-Ressource (DE-627)663603412 (DE-600)2616961-7 (DE-576)347284604 1857-6982 nnns volume:12 year:2021 number:1 month:06 pages:32-39 https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf Verlag kostenfrei https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889 Resolving-System kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_26 ISIL_DE-206 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_2403 GBV_ILN_2403 ISIL_DE-LFER AR 12 2021 1 6 32-39 26 01 0206 3956169859 x1z 20-07-21 2403 01 DE-LFER 3965084003 00 --%%-- --%%-- n --%%-- l01 11-08-21 2403 01 DE-LFER https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf
language	English
source	Enthalten in UTMS journal of economics 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 volume:12 year:2021 number:1 month:06 pages:32-39
sourceStr	Enthalten in UTMS journal of economics 12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39 volume:12 year:2021 number:1 month:06 pages:32-39
format_phy_str_mv	Article
building	26:1 2403:0
institution	findex.gbv.de
selectbib_iln_str_mv	26@1z 2403@01
topic_facet	software verification software verification models software verification platforms
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	UTMS journal of economics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Sitnikovski, Boro @@aut@@ Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija @@aut@@ Stojcevska, Biljana @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-06-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	663603412
id	1763748235
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">1763748235</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240209123411.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210720s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10419/281889</subfield><subfield code="2">hdl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)1763748235</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)KXP1763748235</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M42</subfield><subfield code="a">M49</subfield><subfield code="2">jelc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sitnikovski, Boro</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1234420422</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-627)1759226971</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Models for software verification</subfield><subfield code="b">proving program correctness</subfield><subfield code="c">Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">software verification</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">software verification models</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">software verification platforms</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stojcevska, Biljana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="a">Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje)</subfield><subfield code="t">UTMS journal of economics</subfield><subfield code="d">Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)663603412</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2616961-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)347284604</subfield><subfield code="x">1857-6982</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:32-39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ISIL_DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_KXP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2403</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2403</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ISIL_DE-LFER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">6</subfield><subfield code="h">32-39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">26</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">0206</subfield><subfield code="b">3956169859</subfield><subfield code="y">x1z</subfield><subfield code="z">20-07-21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">2403</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">DE-LFER</subfield><subfield code="b">3965084003</subfield><subfield code="c">00</subfield><subfield code="f">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="d">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="e">n</subfield><subfield code="j">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="y">l01</subfield><subfield code="z">11-08-21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="981" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">2403</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">DE-LFER</subfield><subfield code="r">https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
standort_str_mv	--%%--
standort_iln_str_mv	2403:--%%-- DE-LFER:--%%--
author	Sitnikovski, Boro
spellingShingle	Sitnikovski, Boro jelc M42 misc software verification misc software verification models misc software verification platforms Models for software verification proving program correctness
authorStr	Sitnikovski, Boro
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)663603412
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
typewithnormlink_str_mv	Person@(DE-588)1234420422 DifferentiatedPerson@(DE-588)1234420422
collection	KXP GVK SWB
remote_str	true
last_changed_iln_str_mv	26@20-07-21 2403@11-08-21
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1857-6982
topic_title	M42 M49 jelc Models for software verification proving program correctness Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska software verification (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification models (dpeaa)DE-206 software verification platforms (dpeaa)DE-206
topic	jelc M42 misc software verification misc software verification models misc software verification platforms
topic_unstemmed	jelc M42 misc software verification misc software verification models misc software verification platforms
topic_browse	jelc M42 misc software verification misc software verification models misc software verification platforms
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
standort_txtP_mv	--%%--
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	UTMS journal of economics
normlinkwithtype_str_mv	(DE-588)1234420422@Person (DE-588)1234420422@DifferentiatedPerson
hierarchy_parent_id	663603412
signature	--%%--
signature_str_mv	--%%--
hierarchy_top_title	UTMS journal of economics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)663603412 (DE-600)2616961-7 (DE-576)347284604
normlinkwithrole_str_mv	(DE-588)1234420422@@aut@@
title	Models for software verification proving program correctness
ctrlnum	(DE-627)1763748235 (DE-599)KXP1763748235
title_full	Models for software verification proving program correctness Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska
author_sort	Sitnikovski, Boro
journal	UTMS journal of economics
journalStr	UTMS journal of economics
callnumber-first-code	-
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	32
author_browse	Sitnikovski, Boro Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija Stojcevska, Biljana
selectkey	26:x 2403:l
container_volume	12
class	M42 M49 jelc
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Sitnikovski, Boro
title_sub	proving program correctness
normlink	1234420422 1759226971
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(DE-588)1234420422 (DE-627)1759226971
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	models for software verificationproving program correctness
title_auth	Models for software verification proving program correctness
abstract	The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today.
abstractGer	The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today.
abstract_unstemmed	The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_26 ISIL_DE-206 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_2403 ISIL_DE-LFER
container_issue	1
title_short	Models for software verification
url	https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889
ausleihindikator_str_mv	26 2403:n
rolewithnormlink_str_mv	@@aut@@(DE-588)1234420422
remote_bool	true
author2	Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija Stojcevska, Biljana
author2Str	Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija Stojcevska, Biljana
ppnlink	663603412
GND_str_mv	Sitnikovski, Boro
GND_txt_mv	Sitnikovski, Boro
GND_txtF_mv	Sitnikovski, Boro
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
callnumber-a	--%%--
up_date	2024-07-04T09:19:19.422Z
_version_	1803639596700925952
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">1763748235</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240209123411.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210720s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10419/281889</subfield><subfield code="2">hdl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)1763748235</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)KXP1763748235</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M42</subfield><subfield code="a">M49</subfield><subfield code="2">jelc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sitnikovski, Boro</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1234420422</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-627)1759226971</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Models for software verification</subfield><subfield code="b">proving program correctness</subfield><subfield code="c">Boro Sitnikovski, Lidija Goracinova-Ilieva, and Biljana Stojcevska</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The accuracy of computer systems represents the property that they are working as the users expect. Very often, these computer systems give inaccurate or wrong results. However, designing correct computer systems is a complex and expensive task. There are several ways to deal with this problem. In practice, the most common approach is to design and perform tests. However, these tests can only detect a specific set of problems. Another (more expensive) approach is to do a formal proof of correctness for a given code. This proof of correctness is, in fact, mathematical proof that the software works according to given specifications. Mathematical evidence covers all possible cases, and it is this evidence that confirms that code does exactly what it is intended to do. There are several platforms and mathematical models for software verification. Formal verification is based on mathematical proofs, and these platforms are divided into manual and automatic. Among the manual proof verification software, some of the most known ones are the programming languages Coq (based on type theory), Idris, etc. These are manual theorem provers, as the proof must be handwritten. Another family of theorem provers is the so-called automatic provers, which use algorithms to automatically deduce a given theorem. The programming language Dafny is one of their best representatives. This paper aims to show the state-of-the-art tools used today.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">software verification</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">software verification models</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">software verification platforms</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goracinova-Ilieva, Lidija</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stojcevska, Biljana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="a">Univerzitet za Turizam i Menadžment (Skopje)</subfield><subfield code="t">UTMS journal of economics</subfield><subfield code="d">Skopje : [Verlag nicht ermittelbar], 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2021), 1 vom: Juni, Seite 32-39</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)663603412</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2616961-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)347284604</subfield><subfield code="x">1857-6982</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:32-39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/281889</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ISIL_DE-206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_KXP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2403</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2403</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ISIL_DE-LFER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">6</subfield><subfield code="h">32-39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">26</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">0206</subfield><subfield code="b">3956169859</subfield><subfield code="y">x1z</subfield><subfield code="z">20-07-21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">2403</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">DE-LFER</subfield><subfield code="b">3965084003</subfield><subfield code="c">00</subfield><subfield code="f">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="d">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="e">n</subfield><subfield code="j">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="y">l01</subfield><subfield code="z">11-08-21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="981" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">2403</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">DE-LFER</subfield><subfield code="r">https://utmsjoe.mk/files/Vol.12.No.1/3.MODELS_FOR_SOFTWARE_VERIFICATION_PROVING_PROGRAM_CORRECTNESS.pdf</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399131

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Models for software verification : proving program correctness

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?