Results 1  10
of
22
Syntax and Semantics of Dependent Types
 Semantics and Logics of Computation
, 1997
"... ion is written as [x: oe]M instead of x: oe:M and application is written M(N) instead of App [x:oe] (M; N ). 1 Iterated abstractions and applications are written [x 1 : oe 1 ; : : : ; x n : oe n ]M and M(N 1 ; : : : ; N n ), respectively. The lacking type information can be inferred. The universe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 40 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ion is written as [x: oe]M instead of x: oe:M and application is written M(N) instead of App [x:oe] (M; N ). 1 Iterated abstractions and applications are written [x 1 : oe 1 ; : : : ; x n : oe n ]M and M(N 1 ; : : : ; N n ), respectively. The lacking type information can be inferred. The universe is written Set instead of U . The Eloperator is omitted. For example the \Pitype is described by the following constant and equality declarations (understood in every valid context): ` \Pi : (oe: Set; : (oe)Set)Set ` App : (oe: Set; : (oe)Set; m: \Pi(oe; ); n: oe) (m) ` : (oe: Set; : (oe)Set; m: (x: oe) (x))\Pi(oe; ) oe: Set; : (oe)Set; m: (x: oe) (x); n: oe ` App(oe; ; (oe; ; m); n) = m(n) Notice, how terms with free variables are represented as framework abstractions (in the type of ) and how substitution is represented as framework application (in the type of App and in the equation). In this way the burden of dealing correctly with variables, substitution, and binding is s...
The Groupoid Interpretation of Type Theory
 In Venice Festschrift
, 1996
"... ion and application Suppose that M 2 Tm(B). We define its abstraction A;B (M) 2 Tm(\Pi LF (A; B)) on objects by A;B (M)(fl)(a) = M(fl; a) A;B (M)(fl)(q) = M(id fl ; q) If p : fl ! fl 0 then we need a natural transformation A;B (M)(p) : p \Delta A;B (M)(fl) ! A;B (M)(fl 0 ) At object a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ion and application Suppose that M 2 Tm(B). We define its abstraction A;B (M) 2 Tm(\Pi LF (A; B)) on objects by A;B (M)(fl)(a) = M(fl; a) A;B (M)(fl)(q) = M(id fl ; q) If p : fl ! fl 0 then we need a natural transformation A;B (M)(p) : p \Delta A;B (M)(fl) ! A;B (M)(fl 0 ) At object a 2 A(fl 0 ) it is given by M(p; id a ). Conversely, if M 2 Tm(\Pi(A; B)) we define a dependent object \Gamma1 A;B 2 Tm(B). Its object part is given by \Gamma1 A;B (M)(fl; a) = M(fl)(a) For the morphism part assume p : fl ! fl 0 and q : p \Delta a ! a 0 . We define \Gamma1 A;B (M)(p; q) = M(fl 0 )(q) ffi (id fl 0 ; q) \Delta M(p) p \Delta a We claim that \Gamma1 A;B (M)(p; q) : (p; q) \Delta \Gamma1 A;B (M)(fl; a) ! \Gamma1 A;B (M)(fl 0 ; a 0 ) as required. To see this, first note that M(fl 0 )(q) : (id fl 0 ; q) \Delta M 0 (fl 0 )(p \Delta a) !M 0 (fl 0 )(a 0 ) because q : p \Delta a ! a 0 . On the other hand M(p) : p \Delta M(fl) !M(fl 0 )...
From formal proofs to mathematical proofs: A safe, incremental way for building in firstorder decision procedures
 In TCS 2008: 5th IFIP International Conference on Theoretical Computer Science
, 2008
"... (CIC) on which the proof assistant Coq is based: the Calculus of Congruent Inductive Constructions, which truly extends CIC by building in arbitrary firstorder decision procedures: deduction is still in charge of the CIC kernel, while computation is outsourced to dedicated firstorder decision proc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(CIC) on which the proof assistant Coq is based: the Calculus of Congruent Inductive Constructions, which truly extends CIC by building in arbitrary firstorder decision procedures: deduction is still in charge of the CIC kernel, while computation is outsourced to dedicated firstorder decision procedures that can be taken from the shelves provided they deliver a proof certificate. The soundness of the whole system becomes an incremental property following from the soundness of the certificate checkers and that of the kernel. A detailed example shows that the resulting style of proofs becomes closer to that of the working mathematician. 1
CoLoR: a Coq library on wellfounded rewrite relations and its application to the automated verification of termination certificates
, 2010
"... ..."
Ordinals and Interactive Programs
, 2000
"... The work reported in this thesis arises from the old idea, going back to the origins of constructive logic, that a proof is fundamentally a kind of program. If proofs can be ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The work reported in this thesis arises from the old idea, going back to the origins of constructive logic, that a proof is fundamentally a kind of program. If proofs can be
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
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.