Results 1  10
of
33
A Proof Theory for Generic Judgments
, 2003
"... this paper, we do this by adding the #quantifier: its role will be to declare variables to be new and of local scope. The syntax of the formula # x.B is like that for the universal and existential quantifiers. Following Church's Simple Theory of Types [Church 1940], formulas are given the type ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, we do this by adding the #quantifier: its role will be to declare variables to be new and of local scope. The syntax of the formula # x.B is like that for the universal and existential quantifiers. Following Church's Simple Theory of Types [Church 1940], formulas are given the type o, and for all types # not containing o, # is a constant of type (# o) o. The expression # #x.B is ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. V, No. N, October 2003. 4 usually abbreviated as simply # x.B or as if the type information is either simple to infer or not important
A proof theory for generic judgments: An extended abstract
 In LICS 2003
, 2003
"... A powerful and declarative means of specifying computations containing abstractions involves metalevel, universally quantified generic judgments. We present a proof theory for such judgments in which signatures are associated to each sequent (used to account for eigenvariables of the sequent) and t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A powerful and declarative means of specifying computations containing abstractions involves metalevel, universally quantified generic judgments. We present a proof theory for such judgments in which signatures are associated to each sequent (used to account for eigenvariables of the sequent) and to each formula in the sequent (used to account for generic variables locally scoped over the formula). A new quantifier, ∇, is introduced to explicitly manipulate the local signature. Intuitionistic logic extended with ∇ satisfies cutelimination even when the logic is additionally strengthened with a proof theoretic notion of definitions. The resulting logic can be used to encode naturally a number of examples involving name abstractions, and we illustrate using the πcalculus and the encoding of objectlevel provability.
Least and greatest fixed points in linear logic Extended Version
, 2007
"... david.baelde at enslyon.org dale.miller at inria.fr Abstract. The firstorder theory of MALL (multiplicative, additive linear logic) over only equalities is an interesting but weak logic since it cannot capture unbounded (infinite) behavior. Instead of accounting for unbounded behavior via the addi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
david.baelde at enslyon.org dale.miller at inria.fr Abstract. The firstorder theory of MALL (multiplicative, additive linear logic) over only equalities is an interesting but weak logic since it cannot capture unbounded (infinite) behavior. Instead of accounting for unbounded behavior via the addition of the exponentials (! and?), we add least and greatest fixed point operators. The resulting logic, which we call µMALL = , satisfies two fundamental proof theoretic properties. In particular, µMALL = satisfies cutelimination, which implies consistency, and has a complete focused proof system. This second result about focused proofs provides a strong normal form for cutfree proof structures that can be used, for example, to help automate proof search. We then consider applying these two results about µMALL = to derive a focused proof system for an intuitionistic logic extended with induction and coinduction. The traditional approach to encoding intuitionistic logic into linear logic relies heavily on using the exponentials, which unfortunately weaken the focusing discipline. We get a better focused proof system by observing that certain fixed points satisfy the structural rules of weakening and contraction (without using exponentials). The resulting focused proof system for intuitionistic logic is closely related to the one implemented in Bedwyr, a recent model checker based on logic programming. We discuss how our proof theory might be used to build a computational system that can partially automate induction and coinduction. 1
Induction and coinduction in sequent calculus
 Postproceedings of TYPES 2003, number 3085 in LNCS
, 2003
"... Abstract. Proof search has been used to specify a wide range of computation systems. In order to build a framework for reasoning about such specifications, we make use of a sequent calculus involving induction and coinduction. These proof principles are based on a proof theoretic (rather than sett ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Proof search has been used to specify a wide range of computation systems. In order to build a framework for reasoning about such specifications, we make use of a sequent calculus involving induction and coinduction. These proof principles are based on a proof theoretic (rather than settheoretic) notion of definition [13, 20, 25, 51]. Definitions are akin to (stratified) logic programs, where the left and right rules for defined atoms allow one to view theories as “closed ” or defining fixed points. The use of definitions makes it possible to reason intensionally about syntax, in particular enforcing free equality via unification. We add in a consistent way rules for pre and post fixed points, thus allowing the user to reason inductively and coinductively about properties of computational system making full use of higherorder abstract syntax. Consistency is guaranteed via cutelimination, where we give the first, to our knowledge, cutelimination procedure in the presence of general inductive and coinductive definitions. 1
A Proof Search Specification of the πCalculus
 IN 3RD WORKSHOP ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF GLOBAL UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING
, 2004
"... We present a metalogic that contains a new quantifier (for encoding "generic judgment") and inference rules for reasoning within fixed points of a given specification. We then specify the operational semantics and bisimulation relations for the finite πcalculus within this metalogic. Since we ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a metalogic that contains a new quantifier (for encoding "generic judgment") and inference rules for reasoning within fixed points of a given specification. We then specify the operational semantics and bisimulation relations for the finite πcalculus within this metalogic. Since we
The Bedwyr system for model checking over syntactic expressions
 21th Conference on Automated Deduction, LNAI 4603, 391–397
, 2007
"... Bedwyr is a generalization of logic programming that allows model checking directly on syntactic expressions possibly containing bindings. This system, written in OCaml, is a direct implementation of two recent advances in the theory of proof search. The first is centered on the fact that both finit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Bedwyr is a generalization of logic programming that allows model checking directly on syntactic expressions possibly containing bindings. This system, written in OCaml, is a direct implementation of two recent advances in the theory of proof search. The first is centered on the fact that both finite success and finite failure can be captured in the sequent calculus by incorporating inference rules for definitions that allow fixed points to be explored. As a result, proof search in such a sequent calculus can capture simple model checking problems as well as may and must behavior in operational semantics. The second is that higherorder abstract syntax is directly supported using termlevel λbinders and the quantifier known as ∇. These features allow reasoning directly on expressions containing bound variables. 2
Model checking for πcalculus using proof search
 CONCUR, volume 3653 of LNCS
, 2005
"... Abstract. Model checking for transition systems specified in πcalculus has been a difficult problem due to the infinitebranching nature of input prefix, namerestriction and scope extrusion. We propose here an approach to model checking for πcalculus by encoding it into a logic which supports rea ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Model checking for transition systems specified in πcalculus has been a difficult problem due to the infinitebranching nature of input prefix, namerestriction and scope extrusion. We propose here an approach to model checking for πcalculus by encoding it into a logic which supports reasoning about bindings and fixed points. This logic, called F Oλ ∆ ∇ , is a conservative extension of Church’s Simple Theory of Types with a “generic ” quantifier. By encoding judgments about transitions in picalculus into this logic, various conditions on the scoping of names and restrictions on name instantiations are captured naturally by the quantification theory of the logic. Moreover, standard implementation techniques for (higherorder) logic programming are applicable for implementing proof search for this logic, as illustrated in a prototype implementation discussed in this paper. The use of logic variables and eigenvariables in the implementation allows for exploring the state space of processes in a symbolic way. Compositionality of properties of the transitions is a simple consequence of the meta theory of the logic (i.e., cut elimination). We illustrate the benefits of specifying systems in this logic by studying several specifications of modal logics for picalculus. These specifications are also executable directly in the prototype implementation of F Oλ ∆ ∇. 1
Combining generic judgments with recursive definitions
 in "23th Symp. on Logic in Computer Science", F. PFENNING (editor), IEEE Computer Society Press, 2008, p. 33–44, http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/Labo/Dale.Miller/papers/lics08a.pdf US
"... Many semantical aspects of programming languages are specified through calculi for constructing proofs: consider, for example, the specification of structured operational semantics, labeled transition systems, and typing systems. Recent proof theory research has identified two features that allow di ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Many semantical aspects of programming languages are specified through calculi for constructing proofs: consider, for example, the specification of structured operational semantics, labeled transition systems, and typing systems. Recent proof theory research has identified two features that allow direct, logicbased reasoning about such descriptions: the treatment of atomic judgments as fixed points (recursive definitions) and an encoding of binding constructs via generic judgments. However, the logics encompassing these two features have thus far treated them orthogonally. In particular, they have not contained the ability to form definitions of objectlogic properties that themselves depend on an intrinsic treatment of binding. We propose a new and simple integration of these features within an intuitionistic logic enhanced with induction over natural numbers and we show that the resulting logic is consistent. The pivotal part of the integration allows recursive definitions to define generic judgments in general and not just the simpler atomic judgments that are traditionally allowed. The usefulness of this logic is illustrated by showing how it can provide elegant treatments of objectlogic contexts that appear in proofs involving typing calculi and arbitrarily cascading substitutions in reducibility arguments.
Mixing finite success and finite failure in an automated prover
 In Proceedings of ESHOL’05: Empirically Successful Automated Reasoning in HigherOrder Logics, pages 79 – 98
, 2005
"... Abstract. The operational semantics and typing judgements of modern programming and specification languages are often defined using relations and proof systems. In simple settings, logic programming languages can be used to provide rather direct and natural interpreters for such operational semantic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The operational semantics and typing judgements of modern programming and specification languages are often defined using relations and proof systems. In simple settings, logic programming languages can be used to provide rather direct and natural interpreters for such operational semantics. More complex features of specifications such as names and their bindings, proof rules with negative premises, and the exhaustive enumeration of state spaces, all pose significant challenges to conventional logic programming systems. In this paper, we describe a simple architecture for the implementation of deduction systems that allows a specification to interleave between finite success and finite failure. The implementation techniques for this prover are largely common ones from higherorder logic programming, i.e., logic variables, (higherorder pattern) unification, backtracking (using streambased computation), and abstract syntax based on simply typed λterms. We present a particular instance of this prover’s architecture and its prototype implementation, Level 0/1, based on the dual interpretation of (finite) success and finite failure in proof search. We show how Level 0/1 provides a highlevel and declarative implementation of model checking and bisimulation checking for the (finite) πcalculus. 1
Incorporating tables into proofs
"... nigam at lix.inria.fr dale.miller at inria.fr Abstract. We consider the problem of automating and checking the use of previously proved lemmas in the proof of some main theorem. In particular, we call the collection of such previously proved results a table and use a partial order on the table’s ent ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
nigam at lix.inria.fr dale.miller at inria.fr Abstract. We consider the problem of automating and checking the use of previously proved lemmas in the proof of some main theorem. In particular, we call the collection of such previously proved results a table and use a partial order on the table’s entries to denote the (provability) dependency relationship between tabled items. Tables can be used in automated deduction to store previously proved subgoals and in interactive theorem proving to store a sequence of lemmas introduced by a user to direct the proof system towards some final theorem. Tables of literals can be incorporated into sequent calculus proofs using two ideas. First, cuts are used to incorporate tabled items into a proof: one premise of the cut requires a proof of the lemma and the other branch of the cut inserts the lemma into the set of assumptions. Second, to ensure that lemma is not reproved, we exploit the fact that in focused proofs, atoms can have different polarity. Using these ideas, simple logic engines that do focused proof search (such as logic programming interpreters) are able to check proofs for correctness with guarantees that previous work is not redone. We also discuss how a table can be seen as a proof object and discuss some possible uses of tablesasproofs. 1