Results 1  10
of
75
Engineering formal metatheory
 In ACM SIGPLANSIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
, 2008
"... Machinechecked proofs of properties of programming languages have become a critical need, both for increased confidence in large and complex designs and as a foundation for technologies such as proofcarrying code. However, constructing these proofs remains a black art, involving many choices in th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 85 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Machinechecked proofs of properties of programming languages have become a critical need, both for increased confidence in large and complex designs and as a foundation for technologies such as proofcarrying code. However, constructing these proofs remains a black art, involving many choices in the formulation of definitions and theorems that make a huge cumulative difference in the difficulty of carrying out large formal developments. The representation and manipulation of terms with variable binding is a key issue. We propose a novel style for formalizing metatheory, combining locally nameless representation of terms and cofinite quantification of free variable names in inductive definitions of relations on terms (typing, reduction,...). The key technical insight is that our use of cofinite quantification obviates the need for reasoning about equivariance (the fact that free names can be renamed in derivations); in particular, the structural induction principles of relations
Metalogical Frameworks
, 1992
"... In computer science we speak of implementing a logic; this is done in a programming language, such as Lisp, called here the implementation language. We also reason about the logic, as in understanding how to search for proofs; these arguments are expressed in the metalanguage and conducted in the me ..."
Abstract

Cited by 58 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In computer science we speak of implementing a logic; this is done in a programming language, such as Lisp, called here the implementation language. We also reason about the logic, as in understanding how to search for proofs; these arguments are expressed in the metalanguage and conducted in the metalogic of the object language being implemented. We also reason about the implementation itself, say to know it is correct; this is done in a programming logic. How do all these logics relate? This paper considers that question and more. We show that by taking the view that the metalogic is primary, these other parts are related in standard ways. The metalogic should be suitably rich so that the object logic can be presented as an abstract data type, and it must be suitably computational (or constructive) so that an instance of that type is an implementation. The data type abstractly encodes all that is relevant for metareasoning, i.e., not only the term constructing functions but also the...
Some lambda calculus and type theory formalized
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1999
"... Abstract. We survey a substantial body of knowledge about lambda calculus and Pure Type Systems, formally developed in a constructive type theory using the LEGO proof system. On lambda calculus, we work up to an abstract, simplified, proof of standardization for beta reduction, that does not mention ..."
Abstract

Cited by 57 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We survey a substantial body of knowledge about lambda calculus and Pure Type Systems, formally developed in a constructive type theory using the LEGO proof system. On lambda calculus, we work up to an abstract, simplified, proof of standardization for beta reduction, that does not mention redex positions or residuals. Then we outline the meta theory of Pure Type Systems, leading to the strengthening lemma. One novelty is our use of named variables for the formalization. Along the way we point out what we feel has been learned about general issues of formalizing mathematics, emphasizing the search for formal definitions that are convenient for formal proof and convincingly represent the intended informal concepts.
CutElimination and a PermutationFree Sequent Calculus for Intuitionistic Logic
, 1998
"... We describe a sequent calculus, based on work of Herbelin, of which the cutfree derivations are in 11 correspondence with the normal natural deduction proofs of intuitionistic logic. We present a simple proof of Herbelin's strong cutelimination theorem for the calculus, using the recursive ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe a sequent calculus, based on work of Herbelin, of which the cutfree derivations are in 11 correspondence with the normal natural deduction proofs of intuitionistic logic. We present a simple proof of Herbelin's strong cutelimination theorem for the calculus, using the recursive path ordering theorem of Dershowitz.
Focusing the inverse method for linear logic
 Proceedings of CSL 2005
, 2005
"... 1.1 Quantification and the subformula property.................. 3 1.2 Ground forward sequent calculus......................... 5 1.3 Lifting to free variables............................... 10 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 39 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
1.1 Quantification and the subformula property.................. 3 1.2 Ground forward sequent calculus......................... 5 1.3 Lifting to free variables............................... 10
Permutability of Proofs in Intuitionistic Sequent Calculi
, 1996
"... We prove a folklore theorem, that two derivations in a cutfree sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic (based on Kleene's G3) are interpermutable (using a set of basic "permutation reduction rules" derived from Kleene's work in 1952) iff they determine the sa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove a folklore theorem, that two derivations in a cutfree sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic (based on Kleene's G3) are interpermutable (using a set of basic "permutation reduction rules" derived from Kleene's work in 1952) iff they determine the same natural deduction. The basic rules form a confluent and weakly normalising rewriting system. We refer to Schwichtenberg's proof elsewhere that a modification of this system is strongly normalising. Key words: intuitionistic logic, proof theory, natural deduction, sequent calculus. 1 Introduction There is a folklore theorem that two intuitionistic sequent calculus derivations are "really the same" iff they are interpermutable, using permutations as described by Kleene in [13]. Our purpose here is to make precise and prove such a "permutability theorem". Prawitz [18] showed how intuitionistic sequent calculus derivations determine natural deductions, via a mapping ' from LJ to NJ (here we consider only ...
A Natural Semantics for Eiffel Dynamic Binding
, 1996
"... This article formally defines Eiffel dynamic binding in presence of... ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This article formally defines Eiffel dynamic binding in presence of...
ILC: A Foundation for Automated Reasoning About Pointer Programs
, 2005
"... This paper shows how to use Girard’s intuitionistic linear logic extended with arithmetic or other constraints to reason about pointer programs. More specifically, first, the paper defines the proof theory for ILC (Intuitionistic Linear logic with Constraints) and shows it is consistent via a proof ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper shows how to use Girard’s intuitionistic linear logic extended with arithmetic or other constraints to reason about pointer programs. More specifically, first, the paper defines the proof theory for ILC (Intuitionistic Linear logic with Constraints) and shows it is consistent via a proof of cut elimination. Second, inspired by prior work of O’Hearn, Reynolds and Yang, the paper explains how to interpret linear logical formulas as descriptions of a program store. Third, we define a simple imperative programming language with mutable references and arrays and give verification condition generation rules that produce assertions in ILC. Finally, we identify a fragment of ILC, ILC − , that is both decidable and closed under generation of verification conditions. In other words, if loop invariants are specified in ILC − , then the resulting verification conditions are also in ILC −. Since verification condition generation is syntaxdirected, we obtain a decidable procedure for checking properties of pointer programs.