We present a generic approach to readable formal proof documents, called Intelligible semi-automated reasoning (Isar). It addresses the major problem of existing interactive theorem proving systems that there is no appropriate notion of proof available that is suitable for human communication, or even just maintenance. Isar's main aspect is its formal language for natural deduction proofs, which sets out to bridge the semantic gap between internal notions of proof given by state-of-the-art interactive theorem proving systems and an appropriate level of abstraction for user-level work. The Isar language is both human readable and machine-checkable, by virtue of the Isar/VM interpreter. Compared to existing declarative theorem proving systems, Isar avoids several shortcomings: it is based on a few basic principles only, it is quite independent of the underlying logic, and supports a broad range of automated proof methods. Interactive proof development is supported as well...

Although a number of mechanical provers have been introduced and applied widely by academic researchers, these provers are rarely used in the practical development of software. For mechanical provers to be used more widely in practice, two major barriers must be overcome. First, the languages provided by the mechanical provers for expressing the required system behavior must be more natural for software developers. Second, the reasoning steps supported by mechanical provers are usually at too low and detailed a level and therefore discourage use of the prover. To help remove these barriers, we are developing a system called TAME, a high-level user interface to PVS for specifying and proving properties of automata models. TAME provides both a standard specification format for automata models and numerous high-level proof steps appropriate for reasoning about automata models. In previous work, we have shown how TAME can be useful in proving properties about systems described as Lynch-Vaa...

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

We discuss the general concept of calculational reasoning within Isabelle/Isar, which provides a framework for high-level natural deduction proofs that may be written in a human-readable fashion. Setting out from a few basic logical concepts of the underlying meta-logical framework of Isabelle, such as higher-order unification and resolution, calculational commands are added to the basic Isar proof language in a flexible and non-intrusive manner. Thus calculational proof style may be combined with the remaining natural deduction proof language in a liberal manner, resulting in many useful proof patterns. A case-study on formalizing Computational Tree Logic (CTL) in simply-typed set-theory demonstrates common calculational idioms in practice.

Four statements equivalent to well-foundedness (well-founded induction, existence of recursively defined functions, uniqueness of recursively defined functions, and absence of descending omega-chains) have been proved in Mizar and the proofs mechanically checked for correctness. It seems not to be widely known that the existence (without the uniqueness assumption) of recursively defined functions implies well-foundedness. In the proof we used regular cardinals, a fairly advanced notion of set theory. The theory of cardinals in Mizar was developed earlier by G. Bancerek. With the current state of the Mizar system, the proofs turned out to be an exercise with only minor additions at the fundamental level. We would like to stress the importance of a systematic development of a mechanized data base for mathematics in the spirit of the QED Project.

This report describes DECLARE, a prototype implementation of a declarative proof system for simple higher order logic. The purpose of DECLARE is to explore mechanisms of specification and proof that may be incorporated into other theorem provers. It has been developed to aid with reasoning about operational descriptions of systems and languages. Proofs in DECLARE are expressed as proof outlines, in a language that approximates written mathematics. The proof language includes specialised constructs for (co-)inductive types and relations. The system includes an abstract/article mechanism that provides a way of isolating the process of formalization from what results, and simultaneously allow the efficient separate processing of work units. After describing the system we discuss our approach to two subsidiary issues: automation and the interactive environment provided to the user. 1 Introduction This technical report describes DECLARE, a prototype implementation of a declarative proof sy...

The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also di#ers in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mizar mode on top of a tactical prover, allowing one to combine a mathematical proof language with other styles of proof checking. Currently the only fully developed Mizar mode in this style is the Isar proof language for the Isabelle theorem prover. In fact the Isar language has become the o#cial input language to the Isabelle system, even though many users still use its low-level tactical part only.

There are two dierent approaches to formalizing proofs in a computer: the procedural approach (which is the one of the HOL system) and the declarative approach (which is the one of the Mizar system).

Abstract. The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also differs in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mizar mode on top of a tactical prover, allowing one to combine a mathematical proof language with other styles of proof checking. Currently the only fully developed Mizar mode in this style is the Isar proof language for the Isabelle theorem prover. In fact the Isar language has become the official input language to the Isabelle system, even though many users still use its low-level tactical part only. In this paper we compare Mizar and Isar. A small example, Euclid’s proof of the existence of infinitely many primes, is shown in both systems. We also include slightly higher-level views of formal proof sketches. Moreover a list of differences between Mizar and Isar is presented, highlighting the strengths of both systems from the perspective of end-users. Finally, we point out some key differences of the