From: "jwang whu.edu.cn (jwang)" <jwang@whu.edu.cn>
hello,everyone:
I have processed the (/Isabelle/src/HOL/Auth/)NS_Public_Bad file in
Isabelle,but I am puzzled by some result from Isabelle.For example,
when the lemma: "\<exists>NB. \<exists>evs \<in>ns_public. Says A B
(Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB)) \<in> set evs" was processed in
NS_Public_Bad file, the following six subgoal was given .
I don't understand why the six subgoals was produced and how the
inductive approach analyze the lemma?
the six subgoals is shown as follows:
proof (prove): step 2
goal (6 subgoals):
Says A B (Crypt (pubK B) (Nonce ?NB))
: set [Says ?A2 ?B2 (Crypt (pubK ?B2) (Nonce ?NB2)),
Says ?B3 ?A3 (Crypt (pubK ?A3) {|Nonce ?NA3, Nonce ?NB3|}),
Says ?A4 ?B4 (Crypt (pubK ?B4) {|Nonce ?NA4, Agent ?A4|})]
Nonce ?NA4 ~: used []
Nonce ?NB3
~: used [Says ?A4 ?B4 (Crypt (pubK ?B4) {|Nonce ?NA4, Agent ?A4|})]
Says ?A'3 ?B3 (Crypt (pubK ?B3) {|Nonce ?NA3, Agent ?A3|})
: set [Says ?A4 ?B4 (Crypt (pubK ?B4) {|Nonce ?NA4, Agent ?A4|})]
Says ?A2 ?B2 (Crypt (pubK ?B2) {|Nonce ?NA2, Agent ?A2|})
: set [Says ?B3 ?A3 (Crypt (pubK ?A3) {|Nonce ?NA3, Nonce ?NB3|}),
Says ?A4 ?B4 (Crypt (pubK ?B4) {|Nonce ?NA4, Agent ?A4|})]
Says ?B'2 ?A2 (Crypt (pubK ?A2) {|Nonce ?NA2, Nonce ?NB2|})
: set [Says ?B3 ?A3 (Crypt (pubK ?A3) {|Nonce ?NA3, Nonce ?NB3|}),
Says ?A4 ?B4 (Crypt (pubK ?B4) {|Nonce ?NA4, Agent ?A4|})]
Jean
sincerely
From: Lawrence Paulson <lp15@cam.ac.uk>
Papers describing the modelling method are here: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/papers/protocols.html
>
See especially <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/papers/Auth/jcs.pdf>.
The proof you mention is of a "possibility property" and is discussed
on page 19 of that paper.
Lawrence C Paulson
Professor of Computational Logic
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FD, England
Tel: +44(0)1223 334623 Fax: +44(0)1223 334678
Lawrence Paulson.vcf
Last updated: Nov 21 2024 at 12:39 UTC