Skip to content
DenseChip
Learn
PracticeCode labInterview

DenseChip

Navigate

Menu

LearnPracticeCode labInterview

Tools

All toolsSV editorCode repoResume
DenseChip

Practice, courses, and chip-design tools in one focused workspace.

LearnPracticeCode labInterviewToolsLearning paths

© 2026 DenseChip

AboutRoadmapCareersInternshipsFAQContactPrivacyTerms
Skip to lesson

Course contents

  • How to Use This Course
  • Reading Paths
  • Glossary
  • Metrics Reference
  • Formal Cheat Sheet
  • Formal Foundations19
    • Formal versus Simulation
    • Transition Systems, Invariants and the Three Property Roles
      • State, Inputs and the Transition Relation
      • Safety Properties as Invariants
      • Assume, Assert, Cover: the Three Roles
      • State-Space Arithmetic
    • Reset, Initial State and the First Cycle
    • Cone of Influence
    • The Formal Tool Flow, Vendor-Neutral
  • Properties and SVA16
  • Property Development and Constraints19
  • Proof Engines and Convergence23
  • Formal Applications20
  • Equivalence Checking14
  • Formal Coverage and Signoff15
  • Methodology and Debug13
  • Interview Prep15
  • Capstone: A Chip-Block Verification Lab24
Loading lesson

←Formal Foundations
  1. Topics
  2. Formal Verification
  3. Formal Foundations
  4. Transition Systems, Invariants and the Three Property Roles

Part 1 of 10Part 1 of 10/Formal FoundationsAll levels

Transition Systems, Invariants and the Three Property Roles

States, inputs and next-state rules; safety as an invariant; and what assume, assert and cover each mean to the engine.

  • 4topics
  • 4lessons

Every proof in this course works on the same mathematical object: a set of states, a set of inputs, and a rule that maps a state plus inputs to the next state. The design, the properties, and the three directives all make sense once that object is visible. This topic builds it for the decade counter and the FIFO, defines safety as an invariant over reachable states, and fixes the three roles assume, assert, and cover play in every later proof.

Lesson

After it you can...

State, Inputs and the Transition Relation

Describe any design as a transition system and enumerate its reachable states.

Safety Properties as Invariants

Write a safety property as an invariant and read its counterexample as a finite path.

Assume, Assert, Cover: the Three Roles

Place each directive on the right side of the interface and predict what misplacement does.

State-Space Arithmetic

Compute state counts and input-space fractions, and explain why enumeration is impractical.

Suggested order: top to bottom. The first lesson builds the model, the second states properties over it, the third drives the engine with the three directives, and the fourth counts what cannot be counted by visiting.

From the reset state the design reaches a region of reachable states, and no path leads from that region to the bad state. A separate region of unreachable states may have a path to the bad state, but a run from reset never enters it; the induction step, which starts from an arbitrary state, can.
The reachable region has no path to the bad state; an unreachable region can have one, and only an arbitrary starting state can use it.
Check yourself Why does the diagram give the unreachable states a path to the bad state?

The induction step starts from arbitrary states, so it can begin in the unreachable region and step into the bad state even when no real run can get there.

Related topics

  • Earlier: Three Outcomes of a Formal Run

  • Later: K-Induction

PreviousNext: State, Inputs and the Transition Relation

Up next

Up nextState, Inputs and the Transition Relation

Sign in to save progress

Practice this lessonPrevious lessonReport an error

See also

  • Formal versus Simulation
  • Reset, Initial State and the First Cycle
  • Cone of Influence