Results 1  10
of
62
Nominal techniques in Isabelle/HOL
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE20
, 2005
"... Abstract. In this paper we define an inductive set that is bijective with the ffequated lambdaterms. Unlike deBruijn indices, however, our inductive definition includes names and reasoning about this definition is very similar to informal reasoning on paper. For this we provide a structural induc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 80 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this paper we define an inductive set that is bijective with the ffequated lambdaterms. Unlike deBruijn indices, however, our inductive definition includes names and reasoning about this definition is very similar to informal reasoning on paper. For this we provide a structural induction principle that requires to prove the lambdacase for fresh binders only. The main technical novelty of this work is that it is compatible with the axiomofchoice (unlike earlier nominal logic work by Pitts et al); thus we were able to implement all results in Isabelle/HOL and use them to formalise the standard proofs for ChurchRosser and strongnormalisation. Keywords. Lambdacalculus, nominal logic, structural induction, theoremassistants.
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 53 (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 ...
Set Theory for Verification: II  Induction and Recursion
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 2000
"... A theory of recursive definitions has been mechanized in Isabelle's ZermeloFraenkel (ZF) set theory. The objective is to support the formalization of particular recursive definitions for use in verification, semantics proofs and other computational reasoning. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A theory of recursive definitions has been mechanized in Isabelle's ZermeloFraenkel (ZF) set theory. The objective is to support the formalization of particular recursive definitions for use in verification, semantics proofs and other computational reasoning.
Inductive datatypes in HOL  lessons learned in FormalLogic Engineering
 Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics: TPHOLs ’99, LNCS 1690
, 1999
"... Isabelle/HOL has recently acquired new versions of definitional packages for inductive datatypes and primitive recursive functions. In contrast to its predecessors and most other implementations, Isabelle/HOL datatypes may be mutually and indirect recursive, even infinitely branching. We also su ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Isabelle/HOL has recently acquired new versions of definitional packages for inductive datatypes and primitive recursive functions. In contrast to its predecessors and most other implementations, Isabelle/HOL datatypes may be mutually and indirect recursive, even infinitely branching. We also support inverted datatype definitions for characterizing existing types as being inductive ones later. All our constructions are fully definitional according to established HOL tradition. Stepping back from the logical details, we also see this work as a typical example of what could be called "FormalLogic Engineering". We observe that building realistic theorem proving environments involves further issues rather than pure logic only. 1
Reasoning with inductively defined relations in the HOL theorem prover
, 1992
"... Abstract: Inductively defined relations are among the basic mathematical tools of computer science. Examples include evaluation and computation relations in structural operational semantics, labelled transition relations in process algebra semantics, inductivelydefined typing judgements, and proof ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract: Inductively defined relations are among the basic mathematical tools of computer science. Examples include evaluation and computation relations in structural operational semantics, labelled transition relations in process algebra semantics, inductivelydefined typing judgements, and proof systems in general. This paper describes a set of HOL theoremproving tools for reasoning about such inductively defined relations. We also describe a suite of worked examples using these tools. First printed: August 1992
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 41 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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...
Experience with embedding hardware description languages in HOL
 Theorem Provers in Circuit Design
, 1992
"... Abstract The semantics of hardware description languages can be represented in higher order logic. This provides a formal definition that is suitable for machine processing. Experiments are in progress at Cambridge to see whether this method can be the basis of practical tools based on the HOL theor ..."
Abstract

Cited by 39 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract The semantics of hardware description languages can be represented in higher order logic. This provides a formal definition that is suitable for machine processing. Experiments are in progress at Cambridge to see whether this method can be the basis of practical tools based on the HOL theoremproving assistant. Three languages are being investigated: ELLA, Silage and VHDL. The approaches taken for these languages are compared and current progress on building semanticallybased theoremproving tools is discussed.
Abstract datatypes in PVS
 C.S. Lab., SRI International
, 1993
"... under contract NAS 118969 ..."
A Package for Inductive Relation Definitions in HOL
 in Proceedings of the 1991 International Workshop on the HOL Theorem Proving System and its Applications
, 1992
"... This paper describes a set of theorem proving tools based on a new derived principle of definition in HOL, namely the introduction of relations inductively defined by a set of rules. Such inductive definitions abound in computer science. Example application areas include reasoning about structured o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper describes a set of theorem proving tools based on a new derived principle of definition in HOL, namely the introduction of relations inductively defined by a set of rules. Such inductive definitions abound in computer science. Example application areas include reasoning about structured operational semantics, type judgements, transition relations for process algebras, reduction relations, and compositional proof systems. The package described in this paper automates the derivation of certain inductive definitions involved in these applications and provides the basic tools needed for reasoning about the relations introduced by them. 1 Introduction The HOL user community has a strong tradition of taking a purely definitional approach to using higher order logic. That is, the syntax of the logic is extended with new notation not simply by postulating axioms to give meaning to it, but rather by defining it in terms of existing expressions of the logic that already have the requ...