LEGO is a computer program for interactive typechecking in the Extended Calculus of Constructions and two of its subsystems. LEGO also supports the extension of these three systems with inductive types. These type systems can be viewed as logics, and as meta languages for expressing logics, and LEGO is intended to be used for interactively constructing proofs in mathematical theories presented in these logics. I have developed LEGO over six years, starting from an implementation of the Calculus of Constructions by G erard Huet. LEGO has been used for problems at the limits of our abilities to do formal mathematics. In this thesis I explain some aspects of the meta-theory of LEGO's type systems leading to a machine-checked proof that typechecking is decidable for all three type theories supported by LEGO, and to a verified algorithm for deciding their typing judgements, assuming only that they are normalizing. In order to do this, the theory of Pure Type Systems (PTS) is extended and f...

Abstract. We survey a substantial body of knowledge about lambda calculus and Pure Type Systems, formally developed in a constructive type theory using the LEGO proof system. On lambda calculus, we work up to an abstract, simplified, proof of standardization for beta reduction, that does not mention redex positions or residuals. Then we outline the meta theory of Pure Type Systems, leading to the strengthening lemma. One novelty is our use of named variables for the formalization. Along the way we point out what we feel has been learned about general issues of formalizing mathematics, emphasizing the search for formal definitions that are convenient for formal proof and convincingly represent the intended informal concepts.

A proof checking system may support syntax that is more convenient for users than its `official' language. For example LEGO (a typechecker for several systems related to the Calculus of Constructions) has algorithms to infer some polymorphic instantiations (e.g. pair 2 true instead of pair nat bool 2 true) and universe levels (e.g. Type instead of Type(4)). Users need to understand such features, but do not want to know the algorithms for computing them. In this note I explain these two features by non-deterministic operational semantics for "translating" implicit syntax to the fully explicit underlying formal system. The translations are sound and complete for the underlying type theory, and the algorithms (which I will not talk about) are sound (not necessarily complete) for the translations. This note is phrased in terms of a general class of type theories. The technique described has more general application. 1 Introduction Consider the usual formal system, !, for simp...