= Solution
\b[Yes: the mutable specification omits important state and frame clauses.] Queries do not explicitly preserve the receiver, so an implementation could clear its state during `present`, return an empty <sequence>, and satisfy the displayed coverage condition in the resulting state. Arithmetic does not explicitly preserve a distinct operand, so it could corrupt that operand as well as update the receiver. No initial value or independence requirement for `copy` is stated.
The missing old-state annotation on the other operand is particularly serious under <reference aliasing>. If `other` is the receiver, the printed addition equation becomes $a'=a_0+a'$, which is impossible for a nonzero old count. Self-subtraction becomes $a'=a_0-a'$ rather than the intended zero; self-maximum admits arbitrarily increased counts. Specify instead, for every key,
$$
a'(t)=op(a_0(t),b_0(t)),
$$
with both operands evaluated in their pre-states. Queries preserve all states; updates change only the receiver's abstract value and preserve a distinct operand; `copy` produces an independent snapshot of the argument's pre-state. Specify an empty initial state and checked representable arithmetic, or use unbounded counts.
The fact that `present` may contain duplicates or zero-count keys is \b[not itself a violation]: the printed condition expressly requires only a support-covering <sequence>. An implementation may strengthen this to an exact, duplicate-free support. Efficiency also needs a cost model or explicit bounds if it is to be a formal guarantee rather than an informal aspiration.
Back to article page
