Results 1  10
of
30
A Linear Logical Framework
, 1996
"... We present the linear type theory LLF as the forAppeared in the proceedings of the Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science  LICS'96 (E. Clarke editor), pp. 264275, New Brunswick, NJ, July 2730 1996. mal basis for a conservative extension of the LF logical framework. LLF c ..."
Abstract

Cited by 215 (44 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present the linear type theory LLF as the forAppeared in the proceedings of the Eleventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science  LICS'96 (E. Clarke editor), pp. 264275, New Brunswick, NJ, July 2730 1996. mal basis for a conservative extension of the LF logical framework. LLF combines the expressive power of dependent types with linear logic to permit the natural and concise representation of a whole new class of deductive systems, namely those dealing with state. As an example we encode a version of MiniML with references including its type system, its operational semantics, and a proof of type preservation. Another example is the encoding of a sequent calculus for classical linear logic and its cut elimination theorem. LLF can also be given an operational interpretation as a logic programming language under which the representations above can be used for type inference, evaluation and cutelimination. 1 Introduction A logical framework is a formal system desig...
Primitive Recursion for HigherOrder Abstract Syntax
 Theoretical Computer Science
, 1997
"... ..."
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 79 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 +
Unification via Explicit Substitutions: The Case of HigherOrder Patterns
 PROCEEDINGS OF JICSLP'96
, 1998
"... In [6] we have proposed a general higherorder unification method using a theory of explicit substitutions and we have proved its completeness. In this paper, we investigate the case of higherorder patterns as introduced by Miller. We show that our general algorithm specializes in a very convenient ..."
Abstract

Cited by 56 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In [6] we have proposed a general higherorder unification method using a theory of explicit substitutions and we have proved its completeness. In this paper, we investigate the case of higherorder patterns as introduced by Miller. We show that our general algorithm specializes in a very convenient way to patterns. We also sketch an efficient implementation of the abstract algorithm and its generalization to constraint simplification, which has yielded good experimental results at the core of a higherorder constraint logic programming language.
Automated Theorem Proving in a Simple MetaLogic for LF
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AUTOMATED DEDUCTION (CADE15
, 1998
"... Higherorder representation techniques allow elegant encodings of logics and programming languages in the logical framework LF, but unfortunately they are fundamentally incompatible with induction principles needed to reason about them. In this paper we develop a metalogic M_2 which allows i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Higherorder representation techniques allow elegant encodings of logics and programming languages in the logical framework LF, but unfortunately they are fundamentally incompatible with induction principles needed to reason about them. In this paper we develop a metalogic M_2 which allows inductive reasoning over LF encodings, and describe its implementation in Twelf, a specialpurpose automated theorem prover for properties of logics and programming languages. We have used Twelf to automatically prove a number of nontrivial theorems, including type preservation for MiniML and the deduction theorem for intuitionistic propositional logic.
Mode and Termination Checking for HigherOrder Logic Programs
 In Hanne Riis Nielson, editor, Proceedings of the European Symposium on Programming
, 1996
"... . We consider how mode (such as input and output) and termination properties of typed higherorder constraint logic programming languages may be declared and checked effectively. The systems that we present have been validated through an implementation and numerous case studies. 1 Introduction Jus ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We consider how mode (such as input and output) and termination properties of typed higherorder constraint logic programming languages may be declared and checked effectively. The systems that we present have been validated through an implementation and numerous case studies. 1 Introduction Just like other paradigms logic programming benefits tremendously from types. Perhaps most importantly, types allow the early detection of errors when a program is checked against a type specification. With some notable exceptions most type systems proposed for logic programming languages to date (see [18]) are concerned with the declarative semantics of programs, for example, in terms of manysorted, ordersorted, or higherorder logic. Operational properties of logic programs which are vital for their correctness can thus neither be expressed nor checked and errors will remain undetected. In this paper we consider how the declaration and checking of mode (such as input and output) and termina...
Confluence and Preservation of Strong Normalisation in an Explicit Substitutions Calculus
, 1996
"... Explicit substitutions calculi are formal systems that implement fireduction by means of an internal substitution operator. In that calculi it is possible to delay the application of a substitution to a term or to consider terms with partially applied substitutions. The oe calculus of explicit s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 20 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Explicit substitutions calculi are formal systems that implement fireduction by means of an internal substitution operator. In that calculi it is possible to delay the application of a substitution to a term or to consider terms with partially applied substitutions. The oe calculus of explicit substitutions, proposed by Abadi, Cardelli, Curien andL evy, is a firstorder rewriting system that implements substitution and renaming mechanism of calculus. However, oe does not preserve strong normalisation of calculus and it is not a confluent system. Typed variants of oe without composition are strongly normalising but not confluent, while variants with composition are confluent but do not preserve strong normalisation. Neither of them enjoys both properties. In this paper we propose the i calculus. This is, as far as we know, the first confluent calculus of explicit substitutions that preserves strong normalisation. 1. Explicit substitutions The calculus is a higherorder theor...
Cut Rules and Explicit Substitutions
, 2000
"... this paper deals exclusively with intuitionistic logic (in fact, only the implicative fragment), we require succedents to be a single consequent formula. Natural deduction systems, which we choose to call Nsystems, are symbolic logics generally given via introduction and elimination rules for the l ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper deals exclusively with intuitionistic logic (in fact, only the implicative fragment), we require succedents to be a single consequent formula. Natural deduction systems, which we choose to call Nsystems, are symbolic logics generally given via introduction and elimination rules for the logical connectives which operate on the right, i.e., they manipulate the succedent formula. Examples are Gentzen's NJ and NK (Gentzen 1935). Logical deduction systems are given via leftintroduction and rightintroduction rules for the logical connectives. Although others have called these systems "sequent calculi", we call them Lsystems to avoid confusion with other systems given in sequent style. Examples are Gentzen's LK and LJ (Gentzen 1935). In this paper we are primarily interested in Lsystems. The advantage of Nsystems is that they seem closer to actual reasoning, while Lsystems on the other hand seem to have an easier proof theory. Lsystems are often extended with a "cut" rule as part of showing that for a given Lsystem and Nsystem, the derivations of each system can be encoded in the other. For example, NK proves the same as LK + cut (Gentzen 1935). Proof Normalization. A system is consistent when it is impossible to prove false, i.e., derive absurdity from zero assumptions. A system is analytic (has the analycity property) when there is an e#ective method to decompose any conclusion sequent into simpler premise sequents from which the conclusion can be obtained by some rule in the system such that the conclusion is derivable i# the premises are derivable (Maenpaa 1993). To achieve the goals of consistency and analycity, it has been customary to consider
Calculi of Generalised βReduction and Explicit Substitutions: The TypeFree and Simply Typed Versions
, 1998
"... Extending the λcalculus with either explicit substitution or generalized reduction has been the subject of extensive research recently, and still has many open problems. This paper is the first investigation into the properties of a calculus combining both generalized reduction and explicit substit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Extending the λcalculus with either explicit substitution or generalized reduction has been the subject of extensive research recently, and still has many open problems. This paper is the first investigation into the properties of a calculus combining both generalized reduction and explicit substitutions. We present a calculus, gs, that combines a calculus of explicit substitution, s, and a calculus with generalized reduction, g. We believe that gs is a useful extension of the  calculus, because it allows postponement of work in two different but complementary ways. Moreover, gs (and also s) satisfies properties desirable for calculi of explicit substitutions and generalized reductions. In particular, we show that gs preserves strong normalization, is a conservative extension of g, and simulates fireduction of g and the classical calculus. Furthermore, we study the simply typed versions of s and gs, and show that welltyped terms are strongly normalizing and that other properties,...
FirstOrder Unification by Structural Recursion
, 2001
"... Firstorder unification algorithms (Robinson, 1965) are traditionally implemented via general recursion, with separate proofs for partial correctness and termination. The latter tends to involve counting the number of unsolved variables and showing that this total decreases each time a substitution ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Firstorder unification algorithms (Robinson, 1965) are traditionally implemented via general recursion, with separate proofs for partial correctness and termination. The latter tends to involve counting the number of unsolved variables and showing that this total decreases each time a substitution enlarges the terms. There are many such proofs in the literature, for example, (Manna & Waldinger, 1981; Paulson, 1985; Coen, 1992; Rouyer, 1992; Jaume, 1997; Bove, 1999). This paper