Results 1  10
of
10
Complete sequent calculi for induction and infinite descent
 Proceedings of LICS22
, 2007
"... This paper compares two different styles of reasoning with inductively defined predicates, each style being encapsulated by a corresponding sequent calculus proof system. The first system supports traditional proof by induction, with induction rules formulated as sequent rules for introducing induct ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper compares two different styles of reasoning with inductively defined predicates, each style being encapsulated by a corresponding sequent calculus proof system. The first system supports traditional proof by induction, with induction rules formulated as sequent rules for introducing inductively defined predicates on the left of sequents. We show this system to be cutfree complete with respect to a natural class of Henkin models; the eliminability of cut follows as a corollary. The second system uses infinite (nonwellfounded) proofs to represent arguments by infinite descent. In this system, the left rules for inductively defined predicates are simple casesplit rules, and an infinitary, global condition on proof trees is required to ensure soundness. We show this system to be cutfree complete with respect to standard models, and again infer the eliminability of cut. The second infinitary system is unsuitable for formal reasoning. However, it has a natural restriction to proofs given by regular trees, i.e. to those proofs representable by finite graphs. This restricted “cyclic ” system subsumes the first system for proof by induction. We conjecture that the two systems are in fact equivalent, i.e., that proof by induction is equivalent to regular proof by infinite descent.
Cyclic proofs for firstorder logic with inductive definitions
 In TABLEAUX’05, volume 3702 of LNCS
, 2005
"... Abstract. We consider a cyclic approach to inductive reasoning in the setting of firstorder logic with inductive definitions. We present a proof system for this language in which proofs are represented as finite, locally sound derivation trees with a “repeat function ” identifying cyclic proof sect ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We consider a cyclic approach to inductive reasoning in the setting of firstorder logic with inductive definitions. We present a proof system for this language in which proofs are represented as finite, locally sound derivation trees with a “repeat function ” identifying cyclic proof sections. Soundness is guaranteed by a wellfoundedness condition formulated globally in terms of traces over the proof tree, following an idea due to Sprenger and Dam. However, in contrast to their work, our proof system does not require an extension of logical syntax by ordinal variables. A fundamental question in our setting is the strength of the cyclic proof system compared to the more familiar use of a noncyclic proof system using explicit induction rules. We show that the cyclic proof system subsumes the use of explicit induction rules. In addition, we provide machinery for manipulating and analysing the structure of cyclic proofs, based primarily on viewing them as generating regular infinite trees, and also formulate a finitary trace condition sufficient (but not necessary) for soundness, that is computationally and combinatorially simpler than the general trace condition. 1
Sequent Calculi for Process Verification: HennessyMilner Logic for an Arbitrary GSOS
, 2003
"... We argue that, by supporting a mixture of “compositional” and “structural” styles of proof, sequentbased proof systems provide a useful framework for the formal verification of processes. As a worked example, we present a sequent calculus for establishing that processes from a process algebra satis ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We argue that, by supporting a mixture of “compositional” and “structural” styles of proof, sequentbased proof systems provide a useful framework for the formal verification of processes. As a worked example, we present a sequent calculus for establishing that processes from a process algebra satisfy assertions in HennessyMilner logic. The main novelty lies in the use of the operational semantics to derive introduction rules, on the left and right of sequents, for the operators of the process calculus. This gives a generic proof system applicable to any process algebra with an operational semantics specified in the GSOS format. Using a general algebraic notion of GSOS model, we prove a completeness theorem for the cutfree fragment of the proof system, thereby establishing the admissibility of the cut rule. Under mild (and necessary) conditions on the process algebra, an ωcompleteness result, relative to the “intended” model of closed process terms, follows.
A generic cyclic theorem prover
 In APLAS’12, volume 7705 of LNCS
, 2012
"... Abstract. We describe the design and implementation of an automated theorem prover realising a fully general notion of cyclic proof. Our tool, called Cyclist, is able to construct proofs obeying a very general cycle scheme in which leaves may be linked to any other matching node in the proof, and to ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We describe the design and implementation of an automated theorem prover realising a fully general notion of cyclic proof. Our tool, called Cyclist, is able to construct proofs obeying a very general cycle scheme in which leaves may be linked to any other matching node in the proof, and to verify the general, global infinitary condition on such proof objects ensuring their soundness. Cyclist is based on a new, generic theory of cyclic proofs that can be instantiated to a wide variety of logics. We have developed three such concrete instantiations, based on: (a) firstorder logic with inductive definitions; (b) entailments of pure separation logic; and (c) Hoarestyle termination proofs for pointer programs. Experiments run on these instantiations indicate that Cyclist offers significant potential as a future platform for inductive theorem proving. 1
Formalised inductive reasoning in the logic of bunched implications
 In SAS14, volume 4634 of LNCS
, 2007
"... Abstract. We present a framework for inductive definitions in the logic of bunched implications, BI, and formulate two sequent calculus proof systems for inductive reasoning in this framework. The first proof system adopts a traditional approach to inductive proof, extending the usual sequent calcul ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We present a framework for inductive definitions in the logic of bunched implications, BI, and formulate two sequent calculus proof systems for inductive reasoning in this framework. The first proof system adopts a traditional approach to inductive proof, extending the usual sequent calculus for predicate BI with explicit induction rules for the inductively defined predicates. The second system allows an alternative mode of reasoning with inductive definitions by cyclic proof. In this system, the induction rules are replaced by simple casesplit rules, and the proof structures are cyclic graphs formed by identifying some sequent occurrences in a derivation tree. Because such proof structures are not sound in general, we demand that cyclic proofs must additionally satisfy a global trace condition that ensures soundness. We illustrate our inductive definition framework and proof systems with simple examples which indicate that, in our setting, cyclic proof may enjoy certain advantages over the traditional induction approach. 1
Extracting Proofs from Tabled Proof Search
"... Abstract. We consider the problem of model checking specifications involving coinductive definitions such as are available for bisimulation. A proof search approach to model checking with such specifications often involves state exploration. We consider four different tabling strategies that can mi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We consider the problem of model checking specifications involving coinductive definitions such as are available for bisimulation. A proof search approach to model checking with such specifications often involves state exploration. We consider four different tabling strategies that can minimize such exploration significantly. In general, tabling involves storing previously encountered (proved) subgoals and reusing them in proof search. In the case of coinductive proof search, tables allow a limited form of loop checking, which is often necessary for, say, checking bisimulation of nonterminating processes. We enhance the notion of tabled proof search by allowing a limited deduction from tabled entries when performing table lookup. The main problem with this enhanced tabling method is that it is generally unsound when coinductive definitions are involved and when tabled entries contain unproved entries. We design a proof system with tables and show that by managing tabled entries carefully, one would still be able to obtain a sound proof system. That is, we show how one can extract a postfixed point from a tabled proof for a coinductive goal. We then apply this idea to the technique of bisimulation “upto ” commonly used in process algebra. 1
found at the ENTCS Macro Home Page. Proof Systems for Inductive Reasoning in the Logic of Bunched Implications Abstract
"... Replace this file with prentcsmacro.sty for your meeting, ..."
(Show Context)
unknown title
, 2006
"... Sequent calculus proof systems for inductive definitions ..."
(Show Context)
Notes for the Verification of the Session Management Protocol
"... Notes about, and references to, relevant literature for a Master’s Thesis Project at Ericsson AB. Contents 1 Process algebra 2 ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Notes about, and references to, relevant literature for a Master’s Thesis Project at Ericsson AB. Contents 1 Process algebra 2
Cyclic and Inductive Calculi are Equivalent
"... Abstract—Brotherston and Simpson [citation] have formalized and investigated cyclic reasoning, reaching the important conclusion that it is at least as powerful as inductive reasoning (specifically, they showed that each inductive proof can be translated into a cyclic proof). We add to their inves ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract—Brotherston and Simpson [citation] have formalized and investigated cyclic reasoning, reaching the important conclusion that it is at least as powerful as inductive reasoning (specifically, they showed that each inductive proof can be translated into a cyclic proof). We add to their investigation by proving the converse of this result, namely that each inductive proof can be translated into an inductive one. This, in effect, establishes the equivalence between first order cyclic and inductive calculi. I.