Results 1  10
of
70
A Framework for Defining Logics
 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY
, 1993
"... The Edinburgh Logical Framework (LF) provides a means to define (or present) logics. It is based on a general treatment of syntax, rules, and proofs by means of a typed calculus with dependent types. Syntax is treated in a style similar to, but more general than, MartinLof's system of arities. T ..."
Abstract

Cited by 696 (39 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Edinburgh Logical Framework (LF) provides a means to define (or present) logics. It is based on a general treatment of syntax, rules, and proofs by means of a typed calculus with dependent types. Syntax is treated in a style similar to, but more general than, MartinLof's system of arities. The treatment of rules and proofs focuses on his notion of a judgement. Logics are represented in LF via a new principle, the judgements as types principle, whereby each judgement is identified with the type of its proofs. This allows for a smooth treatment of discharge and variable occurrence conditions and leads to a uniform treatment of rules and proofs whereby rules are viewed as proofs of higherorder judgements and proof checking is reduced to type checking. The practical benefit of our treatment of formal systems is that logicindependent tools such as proof editors and proof checkers can be constructed.
The Foundation of a Generic Theorem Prover
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1989
"... Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabelle is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 422 (47 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabelle is now based on higherorder logic  a precise and wellunderstood foundation. Examples illustrate use of this metalogic to formalize logics and proofs. Axioms for firstorder logic are shown sound and complete. Backwards proof is formalized by metareasoning about objectlevel entailment. Higherorder logic has several practical advantages over other metalogics. Many proof techniques are known, such as Huet's higherorder unification procedure. Key words: higherorder logic, higherorder unification, Isabelle, LCF, logical frameworks, metareasoning, natural deduction Contents 1 History and overview 2 2 The metalogic M 4 2.1 Syntax of the metalogic ......................... 4 2.2 ...
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 217 (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...
Logic Programming in the LF Logical Framework
, 1991
"... this paper we describe Elf, a metalanguage intended for environments dealing with deductive systems represented in LF. While this paper is intended to include a full description of the Elf core language, we only state, but do not prove here the most important theorems regarding the basic building b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 175 (50 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we describe Elf, a metalanguage intended for environments dealing with deductive systems represented in LF. While this paper is intended to include a full description of the Elf core language, we only state, but do not prove here the most important theorems regarding the basic building blocks of Elf. These proofs are left to a future paper. A preliminary account of Elf can be found in [26]. The range of applications of Elf includes theorem proving and proof transformation in various logics, definition and execution of structured operational and natural semantics for programming languages, type checking and type inference, etc. The basic idea behind Elf is to unify logic definition (in the style of LF) with logic programming (in the style of Prolog, see [22, 24]). It achieves this unification by giving types an operational interpretation, much the same way that Prolog gives certain formulas (Hornclauses) an operational interpretation. An alternative approach to logic programming in LF has been developed independently by Pym [28]. Here are some of the salient characteristics of our unified approach to logic definition and metaprogramming. First of all, the Elf search process automatically constructs terms that can represent objectlogic proofs, and thus a program need not construct them explicitly. This is in contrast to logic programming languages where executing a logic program corresponds to theorem proving in a metalogic, but a metaproof is never constructed or used and it is solely the programmer's responsibility to construct objectlogic proofs where they are needed. Secondly, the partial correctness of many metaprograms with respect to a given logic can be expressed and proved by Elf itself (see the example in Section 5). This creates the possibilit...
A Judgmental Reconstruction of Modal Logic
 Mathematical Structures in Computer Science
, 1999
"... this paper we reconsider the foundations of modal logic, following MartinL of's methodology of distinguishing judgments from propositions [ML85]. We give constructive meaning explanations for necessity (2) and possibility (3). This exercise yields a simple and uniform system of natural deduction for ..."
Abstract

Cited by 160 (38 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we reconsider the foundations of modal logic, following MartinL of's methodology of distinguishing judgments from propositions [ML85]. We give constructive meaning explanations for necessity (2) and possibility (3). This exercise yields a simple and uniform system of natural deduction for intuitionistic modal logic which does not exhibit anomalies found in other proposals. We also give a new presentation of lax logic [FM97] and find that it is already contained in modal logic, using the decomposition of the lax modality fl A as
The ProofTheory and Semantics of Intuitionistic Modal Logic
, 1994
"... Possible world semantics underlies many of the applications of modal logic in computer science and philosophy. The standard theory arises from interpreting the semantic definitions in the ordinary metatheory of informal classical mathematics. If, however, the same semantic definitions are interpret ..."
Abstract

Cited by 102 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Possible world semantics underlies many of the applications of modal logic in computer science and philosophy. The standard theory arises from interpreting the semantic definitions in the ordinary metatheory of informal classical mathematics. If, however, the same semantic definitions are interpreted in an intuitionistic metatheory then the induced modal logics no longer satisfy certain intuitionistically invalid principles. This thesis investigates the intuitionistic modal logics that arise in this way. Natural deduction systems for various intuitionistic modal logics are presented. From one point of view, these systems are selfjustifying in that a possible world interpretation of the modalities can be read off directly from the inference rules. A technical justification is given by the faithfulness of translations into intuitionistic firstorder logic. It is also established that, in many cases, the natural deduction systems induce wellknown intuitionistic modal logics, previously given by Hilbertstyle axiomatizations. The main benefit of the natural deduction systems over axiomatizations is their
Simple Consequence Relations
 Information and Computation
, 1991
"... We provide a general investigation of Logic in which the notion of a simple consequence relation is taken to be fundamental. Our notion is more general than the usual one since we give up monotonicity and use multisets rather than sets. We use our notion for characterizing several known logics (incl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 98 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We provide a general investigation of Logic in which the notion of a simple consequence relation is taken to be fundamental. Our notion is more general than the usual one since we give up monotonicity and use multisets rather than sets. We use our notion for characterizing several known logics (including Linear Logic and nonmonotonic logics) and for a general, semanticsindependent classification of standard connectives via equations on consequence relations (these include Girard's "multiplicatives" and "additives"). We next investigate the standard methods for uniformly representing consequence relations: Hilbert type, Natural Deduction and Gentzen type. The advantages and disadvantages of using each system and what should be taken as good representations in each case (especially from the implementation point of view) are explained. We end by briefly outlining (with examples) some methods for developing nonuniform, but still efficient, representations of consequence relations.
Reasoning with higherorder abstract syntax in a logical framework
 ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
, 2002
"... Logical frameworks based on intuitionistic or linear logics with highertype quantification have been successfully used to give highlevel, modular, and formal specifications of many important judgments in the area of programming languages and inference systems. Given such specifications, it is natu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 90 (23 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Logical frameworks based on intuitionistic or linear logics with highertype quantification have been successfully used to give highlevel, modular, and formal specifications of many important judgments in the area of programming languages and inference systems. Given such specifications, it is natural to consider proving properties about the specified systems in the framework: for example, given the specification of evaluation for a functional programming language, prove that the language is deterministic or that evaluation preserves types. One challenge in developing a framework for such reasoning is that higherorder abstract syntax (HOAS), an elegant and declarative treatment of objectlevel abstraction and substitution, is difficult to treat in proofs involving induction. In this paper, we present a metalogic that can be used to reason about judgments coded using HOAS; this metalogic is an extension of a simple intuitionistic logic that admits higherorder quantification over simply typed λterms (key ingredients for HOAS) as well as induction and a notion of definition. The latter concept of definition is a prooftheoretic device that allows certain theories to be treated as “closed ” or as defining fixed points. We explore the difficulties of formal metatheoretic analysis of HOAS encodings by considering encodings of intuitionistic and linear logics, and formally derive the admissibility of cut for important subsets
A MultipleConclusion MetaLogic
 In Proceedings of 9th Annual IEEE Symposium On Logic In Computer Science
, 1994
"... The theory of cutfree sequent proofs has been used to motivate and justify the design of a number of logic programming languages. Two such languages, λProlog and its linear logic refinement, Lolli [12], provide data types, higherorder programming) but lack primitives for concurrency. The logic pro ..."
Abstract

Cited by 86 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The theory of cutfree sequent proofs has been used to motivate and justify the design of a number of logic programming languages. Two such languages, λProlog and its linear logic refinement, Lolli [12], provide data types, higherorder programming) but lack primitives for concurrency. The logic programming language, LO (Linear Objects) [2] provides for concurrency but lacks abstraction mechanisms. In this paper we present Forum, a logic programming presentation of all of linear logic that modularly extends the languages λProlog, Lolli, and LO. Forum, therefore, allows specifications to incorporate both abstractions and concurrency. As a metalanguage, Forum greatly extends the expressiveness of these other logic programming languages. To illustrate its expressive strength, we specify in Forum a sequent calculus proof system and the operational semantics of a functional programming language that incorporates such nonfunctional features as counters and references. 1
Logics and Type Systems
, 1993
"... from the last declaration in \Delta (which is p:'). (oeE) In fact the ([\Theta]) is not exactly the ([\Theta]) that is found by induction. Possibly some of the free variables in ([\Theta]) are renamed. What happens is the following: 1. Consider the proofcontext \Delta 1 ] \Delta 2 and especially ..."
Abstract

Cited by 85 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
from the last declaration in \Delta (which is p:'). (oeE) In fact the ([\Theta]) is not exactly the ([\Theta]) that is found by induction. Possibly some of the free variables in ([\Theta]) are renamed. What happens is the following: 1. Consider the proofcontext \Delta 1 ] \Delta 2 and especially the renaming of the declared variables in \Delta 2 that has been caused by the operation ]. 2. Rename the free proofvariables in ([\Theta]) accordingly, obtaining say, ([\Theta 0 ]). 3. Apply ([\Sigma]) to ([\Theta 0 ]). (There will in practice be no confusion if we just write ([\Theta]) instead.) Of course the intended meaning is that the judgement below the double lines is derivable if the judgement above the lines is. This will be proved later in Theorem 3.2.8. It should be clear at this point however that there is a onetoone correspondence between the occurrences of ' as a (nondischarged) premise in the deduction and declarations p:' in \Delta. Notation. If for \Sigma a deducti...