Results 11  20
of
98
Dynamics in ML
, 1993
"... Objects with dynamic types allow the integration of operations that essentially require runtime typechecking into staticallytyped languages. This article presents two extensions of the ML language with dynamics, based on our work on the CAML implementation of ML, and discusses their usefulness. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 56 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Objects with dynamic types allow the integration of operations that essentially require runtime typechecking into staticallytyped languages. This article presents two extensions of the ML language with dynamics, based on our work on the CAML implementation of ML, and discusses their usefulness. The main novelty of this work is the combination of dynamics with polymorphism.
Unification of simply typed lambdaterms as logic programming
 In Eighth International Logic Programming Conference
, 1991
"... The unification of simply typed λterms modulo the rules of β and ηconversions is often called “higherorder ” unification because of the possible presence of variables of functional type. This kind of unification is undecidable in general and if unifiers exist, most general unifiers may not exist ..."
Abstract

Cited by 56 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The unification of simply typed λterms modulo the rules of β and ηconversions is often called “higherorder ” unification because of the possible presence of variables of functional type. This kind of unification is undecidable in general and if unifiers exist, most general unifiers may not exist. In this paper, we show that such unification problems can be coded as a query of the logic programming language Lλ in a natural and clear fashion. In a sense, the translation only involves explicitly axiomatizing in Lλ the notions of equality and substitution of the simply typed λcalculus: the rest of the unification process can be viewed as simply an interpreter of Lλ searching for proofs using those axioms. 1
Third Order Matching is Decidable
 Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
, 1999
"... The higher order matching problem is the problem of determining whether a term is an instance of another in the simply typed calculus, i.e. to solve the equation a = b where a and b are simply typed terms and b is ground. The decidability of this problem is still open. We prove the decidability of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 49 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The higher order matching problem is the problem of determining whether a term is an instance of another in the simply typed calculus, i.e. to solve the equation a = b where a and b are simply typed terms and b is ground. The decidability of this problem is still open. We prove the decidability of the particular case in which the variables occurring in the problem are at most third order. Introduction The higher order matching problem is the problem of determining whether a term is an instance of another in the simply typed calculus i.e. to solve the equation a = b where a and b are simply typed terms and b is ground. Pattern matching algorithms are used to check if a proposition can be deduced from another by elimination of universal quantifiers or by introduction of existential quantifiers. In automated theorem proving, elimination of universal quantifiers and introduction of existential quantifiers are mixed and full unification is required, but in proofchecking and semiaut...
Set theory for verification: I. From foundations to functions
 J. Auto. Reas
, 1993
"... A logic for specification and verification is derived from the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel set theory. The proofs are performed using the proof assistant Isabelle. Isabelle is generic, supporting several different logics. Isabelle has the flexibility to adapt to variants of set theory. Its higherord ..."
Abstract

Cited by 46 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A logic for specification and verification is derived from the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel set theory. The proofs are performed using the proof assistant Isabelle. Isabelle is generic, supporting several different logics. Isabelle has the flexibility to adapt to variants of set theory. Its higherorder syntax supports the definition of new binding operators. Unknowns in subgoals can be instantiated incrementally. The paper describes the derivation of rules for descriptions, relations and functions, and discusses interactive proofs of Cantor’s Theorem, the Composition of Homomorphisms challenge [9], and Ramsey’s Theorem [5]. A generic proof assistant can stand up against provers dedicated to particular logics. Key words. Isabelle, set theory, generic theorem proving, Ramsey’s Theorem,
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.
A generic tableau prover and its integration with Isabelle
 Journal of Universal Computer Science
, 1999
"... Abstract: A generic tableau prover has been implemented and integrated with Isabelle [Paulson, 1994]. Compared with classical rstorder logic provers, it has numerous extensions that allow it to reason with any supplied set of tableau rules. It has a higherorder syntax in order to support userde ne ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract: A generic tableau prover has been implemented and integrated with Isabelle [Paulson, 1994]. Compared with classical rstorder logic provers, it has numerous extensions that allow it to reason with any supplied set of tableau rules. It has a higherorder syntax in order to support userde ned binding operators, such as those of set theory. The uni cation algorithm is rstorder instead of higherorder, but it includes modi cations to handle bound variables. The proof, when found, is returned to Isabelle as a list of tactics. Because Isabelle veri es the proof, the prover can cut corners for e ciency's sake without compromising soundness. For example, the prover can use type information to guide the search without storing type information in full. Categories: F.4, I.1
PolyAML: A polymorphic aspectoriented functional programming language (Extended Version)
, 2005
"... ..."
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 32 (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...
A Proof Procedure for the Logic of Hereditary Harrop Formulas
 JOURNAL OF AUTOMATED REASONING
, 1993
"... A proof procedure is presented for a class of formulas in intuitionistic logic. These formulas are the socalled goal formulas in the theory of hereditary Harrop formulas. Proof search inintuitionistic logic is complicated by the nonexistence of a Herbrandlike theorem for this logic: formulas cann ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A proof procedure is presented for a class of formulas in intuitionistic logic. These formulas are the socalled goal formulas in the theory of hereditary Harrop formulas. Proof search inintuitionistic logic is complicated by the nonexistence of a Herbrandlike theorem for this logic: formulas cannot in general be preprocessed into a form such as the clausal form and the construction of a proof is often sensitive to the order in which the connectives and quantifiers are analyzed. An interesting aspect of the formulas we consider here is that this analysis can be carried out in a relatively controlled manner in their context. In particular, the task of finding a proof can be reduced to one of demonstrating that a formula follows from a set of assumptions with the next step in this process being determined by the structure of the conclusion formula. An acceptable implementation of this observation must utilize unification. However, since our formulas may contain universal and existential quantifiers in mixed order, care must be exercised to ensure the correctness of unification. One way of realizing this requirement involves labelling constants and variables and then using these labels to constrain unification. This form of unification is presented and used in a proof procedure for goal formulas in a firstorder version of hereditary Harrop formulas. Modifications to this procedure for the relevant formulas in a higherorder logic are also described. The proof procedure that we present has a practical value in that it provides the basis for an implementation of the logic programming language lambdaProlog.