Results 1 -
2 of
2
Structuring and Automating Hardware Proofs in a Higher-Order Theorem-Proving Environment
- Formal Methods in System Design
, 1993
"... . In this article we present a structured approach to formal hardware verification by modelling circuits at the register-transfer level using a restricted form of higher-order logic. This restricted form of higher-order logic is sufficient for obtaining succinct descriptions of hierarchically design ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 20 (7 self)
- Add to MetaCart
. In this article we present a structured approach to formal hardware verification by modelling circuits at the register-transfer level using a restricted form of higher-order logic. This restricted form of higher-order logic is sufficient for obtaining succinct descriptions of hierarchically designed register-transfer circuits. By exploiting the structure of the underlying hardware proofs and limiting the form of descriptions used, we have attained nearly complete automation in proving the equivalences of the specifications and implementations. A hardware-specific tool called MEPHISTO converts the original goal into a set of simpler subgoals, which are then automatically solved by a general-purpose, first-order prover called FAUST. Furthermore, the complete verification framework is being integrated within a commercial VLSI CAD framework. Keywords: hardware verification, higher-order logic 1 Introduction The past decade has witnessed the spiralling of interest within the academic com...
Three Tactic Theorem Proving
- In Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, TPHOLs '99
"... . We describe the key features of the proof description language of Declare, an experimental theorem prover for higher order logic. We take a somewhat radical approach to proof description: proofs are not described with tactics but by using just three expressive outlining constructs. The languag ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
. We describe the key features of the proof description language of Declare, an experimental theorem prover for higher order logic. We take a somewhat radical approach to proof description: proofs are not described with tactics but by using just three expressive outlining constructs. The language is "declarative" because each step specifies its logical consequences, i.e. the constants and formulae that are introduced, independently of the justification of that step. Logical constants and facts are lexically scoped in a style reminiscent of structured programming. The style is also heavily "inferential", because Declare relies on an automated prover to eliminate much of the detail normally made explicit in tactic proofs. Declare has been partly inspired by Mizar, but provides better automation. The proof language has been designed to take advantage of this, allowing proof steps to be both large and controlled. We assess the costs and benefits of this approach, and describe ...

