If we prove there is no starvation, we don't need to prove that there is no deadlock or livelock (progress)?

Question

I googled Peterson algorithm proof and noticed that most sites don't bother proving the progress requirement, why is that? Can someone explain?

Answer 1

If I understand your question right, then the answer is simple that the absence of starvation implies the absence of deadlocks/livelocks: If there is no process that starves, so every process willing to progress is eventually doing so, there can be no deadlocks/livelocks. This easily follows from the definitions of the respective notions.