Results 1  10
of
15
Setoids in Type Theory
, 2000
"... Formalising mathematics in dependent type theory often requires to use setoids, i.e. types with an explicit equality relation, as a representation of sets. This paper surveys some possible denitions of setoids and assesses their suitability as a basis for developing mathematics. In particular, we ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Formalising mathematics in dependent type theory often requires to use setoids, i.e. types with an explicit equality relation, as a representation of sets. This paper surveys some possible denitions of setoids and assesses their suitability as a basis for developing mathematics. In particular, we argue that a commonly advocated approach to partial setoids is unsuitable, and more generally that total setoids seem better suited for formalising mathematics. 1
A Constructive Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra without using the Rationals
 In Callaghan et al
, 2001
"... In the FTA project in Nijmegen we have formalized a constructive proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. In the formalization, we have first defined the (constructive) algebraic hierarchy of groups, rings, fields, etcetera. For the reals we have then defined the notion of real number structure, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In the FTA project in Nijmegen we have formalized a constructive proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. In the formalization, we have first defined the (constructive) algebraic hierarchy of groups, rings, fields, etcetera. For the reals we have then defined the notion of real number structure, which is basically a Cauchy complete Archimedean ordered field. This boils down to axiomatizing the constructive reals. The proof of FTA is then given from these axioms (so independent of a specific construction of the reals), where the complex numbers are defined as pairs of real numbers. The proof of FTA that we have chosen to formalize is the one in the seminal book by Troelstra and van Dalen [17], originally due to Manfred Kneser [12]. The proof by Troelstra and van Dalen makes heavy use of the rational numbers (as suitable approximations of reals), which is quite common in constructive analysis, because equality on the rationals is decidable and equality on the reals isn't. In our case, this is not so convenient, because the axiomatization of the reals doesn't `contain' the rationals. Moreover, we found it rather unnatural to let a proof about the reals be mainly dealing with rationals. Therefore, our version of the FTA proof doesn't refer to the rational numbers. The proof described here is a faithful presentation of a fully formalized proof in the Coq system.
CCoRN, the Constructive Coq Repository at Nijmegan
"... We present CCoRN, the Constructive Coq Repository at Nijmegen. It consists of a library of constructive algebra and analysis, formalized in the theorem prover Coq. In this paper we explain the structure, the contents and the use of the library. Moreover we discuss the motivation and the (possible) ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present CCoRN, the Constructive Coq Repository at Nijmegen. It consists of a library of constructive algebra and analysis, formalized in the theorem prover Coq. In this paper we explain the structure, the contents and the use of the library. Moreover we discuss the motivation and the (possible) applications of such a library.
Constructive Reals in Coq: Axioms and Categoricity
"... We describe a construction of the real numbers carried out in the Coq proof assistant. The basis is a set of axioms for the constructive real numbers as used in the FTA (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra) project, carried out at Nijmegen University. The aim of this work is to show that these axioms can ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a construction of the real numbers carried out in the Coq proof assistant. The basis is a set of axioms for the constructive real numbers as used in the FTA (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra) project, carried out at Nijmegen University. The aim of this work is to show that these axioms can be satisfied, by constructing a model for them. Apart from that, we show the robustness of the set of axioms for constructive real numbers, by proving (in Coq) that any two models of it are isomorphic. Finally, we show that our axioms are equivalent to the set of axioms for constructive reals introduced by Bridges in [2]. The construction of the reals is done in the ‘classical way’: first the rational numbers are built and they are shown to be a (constructive) ordered field and then the constructive real numbers are introduced as the usual Cauchy completion of the rational numbers. 1
A Constructive Formalization of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
"... We have finished a constructive formalization in the theorem prover Coq of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which states that differentiation and integration are inverse processes. In this formalization, we have closely followed Bishop's work ([4]). In this paper, we describe the formalizat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We have finished a constructive formalization in the theorem prover Coq of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which states that differentiation and integration are inverse processes. In this formalization, we have closely followed Bishop's work ([4]). In this paper, we describe the formalization in some detail, focusing on how some of Bishop's original proofs had to be refined, adapted or redone from scratch.
Program Extraction from Large Proof Developments
, 2003
"... It is well known that mathematical proofs often contain (abstract) algorithms, but although these algorithms can be understood by a human, it still takes a lot of time and effort to implement this algorithm on a computer; moreover, one runs the risk of making mistakes in the process. From a fully... ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
It is well known that mathematical proofs often contain (abstract) algorithms, but although these algorithms can be understood by a human, it still takes a lot of time and effort to implement this algorithm on a computer; moreover, one runs the risk of making mistakes in the process. From a fully...
Hierarchical Reflection
"... Abstract. The technique of reflection is a way to automate proof construction in type theoretical proof assistants. Reflection is based on the definition of a type of syntactic expressions that gets interpreted in the domain of discourse. By allowing the interpretation function to be partial or even ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. The technique of reflection is a way to automate proof construction in type theoretical proof assistants. Reflection is based on the definition of a type of syntactic expressions that gets interpreted in the domain of discourse. By allowing the interpretation function to be partial or even a relation one gets a more general method known as ``partial reflection''. In this paper we show how one can take advantage of the partiality of the interpretation to uniformly define a family of tactics for equational reasoning that will work in different algebraic structures. The tactics then follow the hierarchy of those algebraic structures in a natural way.
Formalizing Real Calculus in Coq
, 2002
"... We have finished a constructive formalization in the theorem prover Coq of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which states that differentiation and integration are inverse processes. This formalization is built upon the library of constructive algebra created in the FTA (Fundamental Theorem of Alg ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We have finished a constructive formalization in the theorem prover Coq of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which states that differentiation and integration are inverse processes. This formalization is built upon the library of constructive algebra created in the FTA (Fundamental Theorem of Algebra) project, which is extended with results about the real numbers, namely about (power) series. Two important issues that arose in this formalization and which will be discussed in this paper are partial functions (different ways of dealing with this concept and the advantages of each different approach) and the high level tactics that were developed in parallel with the formalization (which automate several routine procedures involving results about realvalued functions).
Equational Reasoning in Algebraic Structures: a Complete Tactic
"... We present rational, a Coq tactic for equational reasoning in abelian groups, commutative rings, and fields. We give an mathematical description of the method that this tactic uses, which abstracts from Coq specifics. We prove that the method that rational uses is correct, and that it is complete fo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present rational, a Coq tactic for equational reasoning in abelian groups, commutative rings, and fields. We give an mathematical description of the method that this tactic uses, which abstracts from Coq specifics. We prove that the method that rational uses is correct, and that it is complete for groups and rings. Completeness means that the method succeeds in proving an equality if and only if that equality is provable from the the group/ring axioms. Finally we characterize in what way our method is incomplete for fields.
Contents
"... We present rational, a Coq tactic for equational reasoning in abelian groups, commutative rings, and fields. We give an mathematical description of the method that this tactic uses, which abstracts from Coq specifics. We prove that the method that rational uses is correct, and that it is complete fo ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We present rational, a Coq tactic for equational reasoning in abelian groups, commutative rings, and fields. We give an mathematical description of the method that this tactic uses, which abstracts from Coq specifics. We prove that the method that rational uses is correct, and that it is complete for groups and rings. Completeness means that the method succeeds in proving an equality if and only if that equality is provable from the the group/ring axioms. Finally we characterize in what way our method is incomplete for fields.