Results 1  10
of
19
Higherorder logic programming
 HANDBOOK OF LOGIC IN AI AND LOGIC PROGRAMMING, VOLUME 5: LOGIC PROGRAMMING. OXFORD (1998
"... ..."
A Notation for Lambda Terms I: A Generalization of Environments
 THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 1994
"... A notation for lambda terms is described that is useful in contexts where the intensions of these terms need to be manipulated. This notation uses the scheme of de Bruijn for eliminating variable names, thus obviating ffconversion in comparing terms. This notation also provides for a class of terms ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A notation for lambda terms is described that is useful in contexts where the intensions of these terms need to be manipulated. This notation uses the scheme of de Bruijn for eliminating variable names, thus obviating ffconversion in comparing terms. This notation also provides for a class of terms that can encode other terms together with substitutions to be performed on them. The notion of an environment is used to realize this `delaying' of substitutions. The precise mechanism employed here is, however, more complex than the usual environment mechanism because it has to support the ability to examine subterms embedded under abstractions. The representation presented permits a ficontraction to be realized via an atomic step that generates a substitution and associated steps that percolate this substitution over the structure of a term. The operations on terms that are described also include ones for combining substitutions so that they might be performed simultaneously. Our notatio...
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 32 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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.
Scoping Constructs In Logic Programming: Implementation Problems And Their Solution
, 1995
"... Machine (WAM). The provision of implications in goals results in the possibility of program clauses being added to the program for the purpose of solving specific subgoals. A naive scheme based on asserting and retracting program clauses does not suffice for implementing such additions for two reaso ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Machine (WAM). The provision of implications in goals results in the possibility of program clauses being added to the program for the purpose of solving specific subgoals. A naive scheme based on asserting and retracting program clauses does not suffice for implementing such additions for two reasons. First, it is necessary to also support the resurrection of an earlier existing program in the face of backtracking. Second, the possibility for implication goals to be surrounded by quantifiers requires a consideration of the parameterization of program clauses by bindings for their free variables. Devices for supporting these additional requirements are described as also is the integration of these devices into the WAM. Further extensions to the machine are outlined for handling higherorder additions to the language. The ideas Work on this paper has been partially supported by NSF Grants CCR8905825 and CCR 9208465. Address correspondence to Gopalan Nadathur, Department of Compute...
Implementing Polymorphic Typing in a Logic Programming Language
 COMPUTER LANGUAGES
, 1993
"... Introducing types into a logic programming language leads to the need for typed unification within the computation model. In the presence of polymorphism and higherorder features, this aspect forces analysis of types at runtime. We propose extensions to the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) that permi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introducing types into a logic programming language leads to the need for typed unification within the computation model. In the presence of polymorphism and higherorder features, this aspect forces analysis of types at runtime. We propose extensions to the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) that permit such analysis to be done with reasonable efficiency. Much information about the structures of types is present at compiletime, and we show that this information can be used to considerably reduce the work during execution. We illustrate our ideas in the context of a typed version of Prolog. We describe a modified representation for terms, new instructions and additional data areas that in conjunction with existing WAM structures suffice to implement this language. The nature of compiled code is illustrated through examples, and the kind of runtime overheads that are incurred for processing types is analyzed, especially in those cases where others have shown that type checking can be eliminated during execution. The ideas
HigherOrder and Modal Logic as a Framework for ExplanationBased Generalization
, 1989
"... Logic programming provides a uniform framework in which all aspects of explanationbased generalization and learning may be defined and carried out, but firstorder Horn logic is not well suited to application domains such as theorem proving or program synthesis where functions and predicates are th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Logic programming provides a uniform framework in which all aspects of explanationbased generalization and learning may be defined and carried out, but firstorder Horn logic is not well suited to application domains such as theorem proving or program synthesis where functions and predicates are the objects of computation. We explore the use of a higherorder representation language and extend EBG to a higherorder logic programming language. Variables may now range over functions and predicates, which leads to an expansion of the space of possible generalizations. We address this problem by extending the logic with the modal ⊔ ⊓ operator (indicating necessary truth) which leads to the language λ ⊔ ⊓ Prolog. We develop a metainterpreter realizing EBG for λ ⊔ ⊓ Prolog and give some examples in an expanded version of this extended abstract which is available as a technical report [2]. 1
Implementation Considerations for HigherOrder Features in Logic Programming
, 1993
"... This paper examines implementation problems that arise from providing for aspects of higherorder programming within and enhancing the metalanguage abilities of logic programming. One issue of concern is a representation for the simplytyped lambda terms that replace the usual firstorder terms as ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper examines implementation problems that arise from providing for aspects of higherorder programming within and enhancing the metalanguage abilities of logic programming. One issue of concern is a representation for the simplytyped lambda terms that replace the usual firstorder terms as data structures; this representation must support an efficient realization of ...conversion operations on these terms. Another issue is the handling of higherorder unification that becomes an integral part of the computational model. An implementation must cater to the branching nature of this operation and also provide a means for temporarily suspending the solution of a unification problem. A final issue concerns the treatment of goals whose structure is not statically apparent. These problems are discussed in detail and solutions to them are described. A representation for lambda terms is presented that uses the de Bruijn "nameless" notation and also permits reduction substitutions to be performed lazily. This notation obviates ...conversion and also supports an efficient implementation of ...reduction. Branching in unification is implemented by using a depthfirst search strategy with backtracking. A structure that is called a branch point record and is akin to the choice point record of the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) is described for remembering alternatives in unification. An explicit representation for unification problems is presented that permits sharing and also supports the rapid reinstatement of earlier versions of the problem. The implementation of unification is tuned to yield an efficient solution to firstorder like problems, in fact through the use of compiled code as in the WAM. A compilation method is also discussed for goals whose structure changes during execution. Th...
The Ergo Support System: An integrated set of tools for prototyping integrated environments
 SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, PITTSBURGH
, 1988
"... The Ergo Support System (ESS) is an engineering framework for experimentation and prototyping to support the application of formal methods to program development, ranging from program analysis and derivation to prooftheoretic approaches. The ESS is a growing suite of tools that are linked together ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Ergo Support System (ESS) is an engineering framework for experimentation and prototyping to support the application of formal methods to program development, ranging from program analysis and derivation to prooftheoretic approaches. The ESS is a growing suite of tools that are linked together by means of a set of abstract interfaces. The principal engineering challenge is the design of abstract interfaces that are semantically rich and yet flexible enough to permit experimentation with a wide variety of formallybased program and proof development paradigms and associated languages. As part of the design of ESS, several abstract interface designs have been developed that provide for more effective component integration while preserving flexibility and the potential for scaling. A benefit of the open architecture approach of ESS is the ability to mix formal and informal approaches in the same environment architecture. The ESS has already been applied in a number of formal methods experiments.
Foundational Aspects of Syntax
, 1999
"... Introduction A large variety of computing systems, such as compilers, interpreters, static analyzers, and theorem provers, need to manipulate syntactic objects like programs, types, formulas, and proofs. A common characteristic of these syntactic objects is that they contain variable binders, such ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction A large variety of computing systems, such as compilers, interpreters, static analyzers, and theorem provers, need to manipulate syntactic objects like programs, types, formulas, and proofs. A common characteristic of these syntactic objects is that they contain variable binders, such as quantifiers, scoping operators, and parameters. The presence of binders complicates formal specifications and symbolic processing. Consider, for example, a function definition of the form f(x) = let y = e in x + y: When analyzing or transforming a program containing the call f(e 0 ), we might wish to replace f(e 0 ) with the body of f in which x is substituted by e 0 . But we cannot simply apply the substitution [x 7! e<
A Notation for Lambda Terms II: Refinements and Applications
, 1994
"... Issues that are relevant to the representation of lambda terms in contexts where their intensions have to be manipulated are examined. The basis for such a representation is provided by the suspension notation for lambda terms that is described in a companion paper. This notation obviates ffconver ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Issues that are relevant to the representation of lambda terms in contexts where their intensions have to be manipulated are examined. The basis for such a representation is provided by the suspension notation for lambda terms that is described in a companion paper. This notation obviates ffconversion in the comparison of terms by using the `nameless' scheme of de Bruijn and also permits a delaying of substitutions by including a class of terms that encode other terms together with substitutions to be performed on them. The suspension notation contains a mechanism for `merging' substitutions so that they can be effected in a common structure traversal. The mechanism is cumbersome to implement in its full generality and a simplification to it is considered. In particular, the old merging operations are eliminated in favor of new ones that capture some of their functionality and that permit a simplified syntax for terms. The resulting notation is refined by the addition of annotations ...