Results 1  10
of
43
The Foundation of a Generic Theorem Prover
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1989
"... Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabelle is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 420 (46 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Isabelle [28, 30] is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics. It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by combining rules. These operations constitute a metalogic (or `logical framework') in which the objectlogics are formalized. Isabelle is now based on higherorder logic  a precise and wellunderstood foundation. Examples illustrate use of this metalogic to formalize logics and proofs. Axioms for firstorder logic are shown sound and complete. Backwards proof is formalized by metareasoning about objectlevel entailment. Higherorder logic has several practical advantages over other metalogics. Many proof techniques are known, such as Huet's higherorder unification procedure. Key words: higherorder logic, higherorder unification, Isabelle, LCF, logical frameworks, metareasoning, natural deduction Contents 1 History and overview 2 2 The metalogic M 4 2.1 Syntax of the metalogic ......................... 4 2.2 ...
Using dependent types to express modular structure
 In Thirteenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
, 1986
"... Several related typed languages for modular programming and data abstraction have been proposed recently, including Pebble, SOL, and ML modules. We review and compare the basic typetheoretic ideas behind these languages and evaluate how they ..."
Abstract

Cited by 125 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Several related typed languages for modular programming and data abstraction have been proposed recently, including Pebble, SOL, and ML modules. We review and compare the basic typetheoretic ideas behind these languages and evaluate how they
ECC, an Extended Calculus of Constructions
, 1989
"... We present a higherorder calculus ECC which can be seen as an extension of the calculus of constructions [CH88] by adding strong sum types and a fully cumulative type hierarchy. ECC turns out to be rather expressive so that mathematical theories can be abstractly described and abstract mathematics ..."
Abstract

Cited by 84 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a higherorder calculus ECC which can be seen as an extension of the calculus of constructions [CH88] by adding strong sum types and a fully cumulative type hierarchy. ECC turns out to be rather expressive so that mathematical theories can be abstractly described and abstract mathematics may be adequately formalized. It is shown that ECC is strongly normalizing and has other nice prooftheoretic properties. An !\GammaSet (realizability) model is described to show how the essential properties of the calculus can be captured settheoretically.
Elf: A Language for Logic Definition and Verified Metaprogramming
 In Fourth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
, 1989
"... We describe Elf, a metalanguage for proof manipulation environments that are independent of any particular logical system. Elf is intended for metaprograms such as theorem provers, proof transformers, or type inference programs for programming languages with complex type systems. Elf unifies logic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 77 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe Elf, a metalanguage for proof manipulation environments that are independent of any particular logical system. Elf is intended for metaprograms such as theorem provers, proof transformers, or type inference programs for programming languages with complex type systems. Elf unifies logic definition (in the style of LF, the Edinburgh Logical Framework) with logic programming (in the style of Prolog). It achieves this unification by giving types an operational interpretation, much the same way that Prolog gives certain formulas (Hornclauses) an operational interpretation. Novel features of Elf include: (1) the Elf search process automatically constructs terms that can represent objectlogic proofs, and thus a program need not construct them explicitly, (2) the partial correctness of metaprograms with respect to a given logic can be expressed and proved in Elf itself, and (3) Elf exploits Elliott's unification algorithm for a calculus with dependent types. This research was...
Natural Deduction as HigherOrder Resolution
 Journal of Logic Programming
, 1986
"... An interactive theorem prover, Isabelle, is under development. In LCF, each inference rule is represented by one function for forwards proof and another (a tactic) for backwards proof. In Isabelle, each inference rule is represented by a Horn clause. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
An interactive theorem prover, Isabelle, is under development. In LCF, each inference rule is represented by one function for forwards proof and another (a tactic) for backwards proof. In Isabelle, each inference rule is represented by a Horn clause.
Locales: A sectioning concept for Isabelle
 IN BERTOT ET AL
, 1999
"... Locales are a means to define local scopes for the interactive proving process of the theorem prover Isabelle. They delimit a range in which fixed assumption are made, and theorems are proved that depend on these assumptions. A locale may also contain constants defined locally and associated with pr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Locales are a means to define local scopes for the interactive proving process of the theorem prover Isabelle. They delimit a range in which fixed assumption are made, and theorems are proved that depend on these assumptions. A locale may also contain constants defined locally and associated with pretty printing syntax. Locales can be seen as a simple form of modules. They are similar to reasoning and similar applications of theorem provers. This paper motivates the concept of locales by examples from abstract algebraic reasoning. It also discusses some implementation issues.
The Conservation Theorem revisited
, 1993
"... This paper describes a method of proving strong normalization based on an extension of the conservation theorem. We introduce a structural notion of reduction that we call fi S , and we prove that any term that has a fi I fi Snormal form is strongly finormalizable. We show how to use this result ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper describes a method of proving strong normalization based on an extension of the conservation theorem. We introduce a structural notion of reduction that we call fi S , and we prove that any term that has a fi I fi Snormal form is strongly finormalizable. We show how to use this result to prove the strong normalization of different typed calculi.
The Rho Cube
 In Proc. of FOSSACS, volume 2030 of LNCS
, 2001
"... www.loria.fr/{~cirstea,~ckirchne,~lliquori} Abstract. The rewriting calculus, or Rho Calculus (ρCal), is a simple calculus that uniformly integrates abstraction on patterns and nondeterminism. Therefore, it fully integrates rewriting and λcalculus. The original presentation of the calculus was unty ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
www.loria.fr/{~cirstea,~ckirchne,~lliquori} Abstract. The rewriting calculus, or Rho Calculus (ρCal), is a simple calculus that uniformly integrates abstraction on patterns and nondeterminism. Therefore, it fully integrates rewriting and λcalculus. The original presentation of the calculus was untyped. In this paper we present a uniform way to decorate the terms of the calculus with types. This gives raise to a new presentation à la Church, together with nine (8+1) type systems which can be placed in a ρcube that extends the λcube of Barendregt. Due to the matching capabilities of the calculus, the type systems use only one abstraction mechanism and therefore gives an original answer to the identification of the standard “λ ” and “Π” abstractors. As a consequence, this brings matching and rewriting as the first class concepts of the Rhoversions of the Logical Framework (LF) of Harper