Results 1 
4 of
4
Nominal techniques in Isabelle/HOL
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE20
, 2005
"... Abstract. In this paper we define an inductive set that is bijective with the ffequated lambdaterms. Unlike deBruijn indices, however, our inductive definition includes names and reasoning about this definition is very similar to informal reasoning on paper. For this we provide a structural induc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 80 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this paper we define an inductive set that is bijective with the ffequated lambdaterms. Unlike deBruijn indices, however, our inductive definition includes names and reasoning about this definition is very similar to informal reasoning on paper. For this we provide a structural induction principle that requires to prove the lambdacase for fresh binders only. The main technical novelty of this work is that it is compatible with the axiomofchoice (unlike earlier nominal logic work by Pitts et al); thus we were able to implement all results in Isabelle/HOL and use them to formalise the standard proofs for ChurchRosser and strongnormalisation. Keywords. Lambdacalculus, nominal logic, structural induction, theoremassistants.
Isabelle/Isar  a generic framework for humanreadable proof documents
 UNIVERSITY OF BIA̷LYSTOK
, 2007
"... ..."
A HeadtoHead Comparison of de Bruijn Indices and Names
 In Proc. Int. Workshop on Logical Frameworks and MetaLanguages: Theory and Practice
, 2006
"... Often debates about pros and cons of various techniques for formalising lambdacalculi rely on subjective arguments, such as de Bruijn indices are hard to read for humans or nominal approaches come close to the style of reasoning employed in informal proofs. In this paper we will compare four formal ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Often debates about pros and cons of various techniques for formalising lambdacalculi rely on subjective arguments, such as de Bruijn indices are hard to read for humans or nominal approaches come close to the style of reasoning employed in informal proofs. In this paper we will compare four formalisations based on de Bruijn indices and on names from the nominal logic work, thus providing some hard facts about the pros and cons of these two formalisation techniques. We conclude that the relative merits of the different approaches, as usual, depend on what task one has at hand and which goals one pursues with a formalisation.
Tools and Techniques for Formalising Structural Proof Theory
"... Whilst results from Structural Proof Theory can be couched in many formalisms, it is the sequent calculus which is the most amenable of the formalisms to metamathematical treatment. Constructive syntactic proofs are filled with bureaucratic details; rarely are all cases of a proof completed in the l ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Whilst results from Structural Proof Theory can be couched in many formalisms, it is the sequent calculus which is the most amenable of the formalisms to metamathematical treatment. Constructive syntactic proofs are filled with bureaucratic details; rarely are all cases of a proof completed in the literature. Two intermediate results can be used to drastically reduce the amount of effort needed in proofs of Cut admissibility: Weakening and Invertibility. Indeed, whereas there are proofs of Cut admissibility which do not use Invertibility, Weakening is almost always necessary. Use of these results simply shifts the bureaucracy, however; Weakening and Invertibility, whilst more easy to prove, are still not trivial. We give a framework under which sequent calculi can be codified and analysed, which then allows us to prove various results: for a calculus to admit Weakening and for a rule to be invertible in a calculus. For the latter, even though many calculi are investigated, the general condition is simple and easily verified. The results have been applied to G3ip, G3cp, G3c, G3s, G3LC and G4ip. Invertibility is important in another respect; that of proofsearch. Should all rules in a calculus be invertible, then terminating rootfirst proof search gives a decision procedure