Results 1  10
of
190
The Foundation of a Generic Theorem Prover
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1989
"... Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabell ..."
Abstract

Cited by 471 (49 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabelle is now based on higherorder logic  a precise and wellunderstood foundation. Examples illustrate use of this metalogic to formalize logics and proofs. Axioms for firstorder logic are shown sound and complete. Backwards proof is formalized by metareasoning about objectlevel entailment. Higherorder logic has several practical advantages over other metalogics. Many proof techniques are known, such as Huet's higherorder unification procedure. Key words: higherorder logic, higherorder unification, Isabelle, LCF, logical frameworks, metareasoning, natural deduction Contents 1 History and overview 2 2 The metalogic M 4 2.1 Syntax of the metalogic ......................... 4 2.2 ...
HOL Light: A tutorial introduction
 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Formal Methods in ComputerAided Design (FMCAD’96), volume 1166 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1996
"... HOL Light is a new version of the HOL theorem prover. While retaining the reliability and programmability of earlier versions, it is more elegant, lightweight, powerful and automatic; it will be the basis for the Cambridge component of the HOL2000 initiative to develop the next generation of HOL th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 110 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
HOL Light is a new version of the HOL theorem prover. While retaining the reliability and programmability of earlier versions, it is more elegant, lightweight, powerful and automatic; it will be the basis for the Cambridge component of the HOL2000 initiative to develop the next generation of HOL theorem provers. HOL Light is written in CAML Light, and so will run well even on small machines, e.g. PCs and Macintoshes with a few megabytes of RAM. This is in stark contrast to the resourcehungry systems which are the norm in this field, other versions of HOL included. Among the new features of this version are a powerful simplifier, effective first order automation, simple higherorder matching and very general support for inductive and recursive definitions.
Automating the Meta Theory of Deductive Systems
, 2000
"... not be interpreted as representing the o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of NSF or the U.S. Government. This thesis describes the design of a metalogical framework that supports the representation and veri cation of deductive systems, its implementation as an automated theorem prover, a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 88 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
not be interpreted as representing the o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of NSF or the U.S. Government. This thesis describes the design of a metalogical framework that supports the representation and veri cation of deductive systems, its implementation as an automated theorem prover, and experimental results related to the areas of programming languages, type theory, and logics. Design: The metalogical framework extends the logical framework LF [HHP93] by a metalogic M + 2. This design is novel and unique since it allows higherorder encodings of deductive systems and induction principles to coexist. On the one hand, higherorder representation techniques lead to concise and direct encodings of programming languages and logic calculi. Inductive de nitions on the other hand allow the formalization of properties about deductive systems, such as the proof that an operational semantics preserves types or the proof that a logic is is a proof calculus whose proof terms are recursive functions that may be consistent.M +
Dependently Typed Functional Programs and their Proofs
, 1999
"... Research in dependent type theories [ML71a] has, in the past, concentrated on its use in the presentation of theorems and theoremproving. This thesis is concerned mainly with the exploitation of the computational aspects of type theory for programming, in a context where the properties of programs ..."
Abstract

Cited by 85 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Research in dependent type theories [ML71a] has, in the past, concentrated on its use in the presentation of theorems and theoremproving. This thesis is concerned mainly with the exploitation of the computational aspects of type theory for programming, in a context where the properties of programs may readily be specified and established. In particular, it develops technology for programming with dependent inductive families of datatypes and proving those programs correct. It demonstrates the considerable advantage to be gained by indexing data structures with pertinent characteristic information whose soundness is ensured by typechecking, rather than human effort. Type theory traditionally presents safe and terminating computation on inductive datatypes by means of elimination rules which serve as induction principles and, via their associated reduction behaviour, recursion operators [Dyb91]. In the programming language arena, these appear somewhat cumbersome and give rise to unappealing code, complicated by the inevitable interaction between case analysis on dependent types and equational reasoning on their indices which must appear explicitly in the terms. Thierry Coquand’s proposal [Coq92] to equip type theory directly with the kind of
Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: A Survey and Critique
, 1995
"... One way to ensure correctness of the inference performed by computer theorem provers is to force all proofs to be done step by step in a simple, more or less traditional, deductive system. Using techniques pioneered in Edinburgh LCF, this can be made palatable. However, some believe such an appro ..."
Abstract

Cited by 69 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
One way to ensure correctness of the inference performed by computer theorem provers is to force all proofs to be done step by step in a simple, more or less traditional, deductive system. Using techniques pioneered in Edinburgh LCF, this can be made palatable. However, some believe such an approach will never be efficient enough for large, complex proofs. One alternative, commonly called reflection, is to analyze proofs using a second layer of logic, a metalogic, and so justify abbreviating or simplifying proofs, making the kinds of shortcuts humans often do or appealing to specialized decision algorithms. In this paper we contrast the fullyexpansive LCF approach with the use of reflection. We put forward arguments to suggest that the inadequacy of the LCF approach has not been adequately demonstrated, and neither has the practical utility of reflection (notwithstanding its undoubted intellectual interest). The LCF system with which we are most concerned is the HOL proof ...
Mechanizing Programming Logics in Higher Order Logic
 in Current Trends in Hardware Verification and Automated Theorem Proving, ed. P.A. Subrahmanyam and Graham Birtwistle
, 1989
"... Formal reasoning about computer programs can be based directly on the semantics of the programming language, or done in a special purpose logic like Hoare logic. The advantage of the first approach is that it guarantees that the formal reasoning applies to the language being used (it is well known, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 64 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Formal reasoning about computer programs can be based directly on the semantics of the programming language, or done in a special purpose logic like Hoare logic. The advantage of the first approach is that it guarantees that the formal reasoning applies to the language being used (it is well known, for example, that Hoare’s assignment axiom fails to hold for most programming languages). The advantage of the second approach is that the proofs can be more direct and natural. In this paper, an attempt to get the advantages of both approaches is described. The rules of Hoare logic are mechanically derived from the semantics of a simple imperative programming language (using the HOL system). These rules form the basis for a simple program verifier in which verification conditions are generated by LCFstyle tactics whose validations use the derived Hoare rules. Because Hoare logic is derived, rather than postulated, it is straightforward to mix semantic and axiomatic reasoning. It is also straightforward to combine the constructs of Hoare logic with other applicationspecific notations. This is briefly illustrated for various logical constructs, including termination statements, VDMstyle ‘relational’ correctness specifications, weakest precondition statements and dynamic logic formulae. The theory underlying the work presented here is well known. Our contribution is to propose a way of mechanizing this theory in a way that makes certain practical details work out smoothly.
Real Theorem Provers Deserve Real UserInterfaces
, 1992
"... This paper explains how to add a modern user interface to existing theorem provers, using principles and tools designed for programming environments. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 59 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper explains how to add a modern user interface to existing theorem provers, using principles and tools designed for programming environments.
Mechanizing Coinduction and Corecursion in Higherorder Logic
 Journal of Logic and Computation
, 1997
"... A theory of recursive and corecursive definitions has been developed in higherorder logic (HOL) and mechanized using Isabelle. Least fixedpoints express inductive data types such as strict lists; greatest fixedpoints express coinductive data types, such as lazy lists. Wellfounded recursion expresse ..."
Abstract

Cited by 51 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A theory of recursive and corecursive definitions has been developed in higherorder logic (HOL) and mechanized using Isabelle. Least fixedpoints express inductive data types such as strict lists; greatest fixedpoints express coinductive data types, such as lazy lists. Wellfounded recursion expresses recursive functions over inductive data types; corecursion expresses functions that yield elements of coinductive data types. The theory rests on a traditional formalization of infinite trees. The theory is intended for use in specification and verification. It supports reasoning about a wide range of computable functions, but it does not formalize their operational semantics and can express noncomputable functions also. The theory is illustrated using finite and infinite lists. Corecursion expresses functions over infinite lists; coinduction reasons about such functions. Key words. Isabelle, higherorder logic, coinduction, corecursion Copyright c fl 1996 by Lawrence C. Paulson Content...
Proof by Pointing
, 1994
"... This paper presents a principle for using locations in logical expressions to guide the process of building proofs. Using a sequentstyle presentation of theorem provers, we annotate the inference rules to specify an algorithm that associates the construction of a proof tree to a location within ..."
Abstract

Cited by 46 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a principle for using locations in logical expressions to guide the process of building proofs. Using a sequentstyle presentation of theorem provers, we annotate the inference rules to specify an algorithm that associates the construction of a proof tree to a location within a goal sequent. This principle provides a natural and effective use of the mouse in the userinterface of computer proof assistants. The implementation of the algorithm in a variety of theorem provers is discussed.