Results 11  20
of
22
Can proofs be animated by games?
 . URZYCZYN ED., TLCA 2005, LNCS 3461
, 2005
"... Proof animation is a way of executing proofs to find errors in the formalization of proofs. It is intended to be "testing in proof engineering". Although the realizability interpretation as well as the functional interpretation based on limitcomputations were introduced as means for proof animati ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof animation is a way of executing proofs to find errors in the formalization of proofs. It is intended to be "testing in proof engineering". Although the realizability interpretation as well as the functional interpretation based on limitcomputations were introduced as means for proof animation, they were unrealistic as an architectural basis for actual proof animation tools. We have found game theoretical semantics corresponding to these interpretations, which is likely to be the right architectural basis for proof animation.
Towards Limit Computable Mathematics
"... The notion of LimitComputable Mathematics (LCM) will be introduced. LCM is a fragment of classical mathematics in which the law of excluded middle is restricted to 1 0 2 formulas. We can give an accountable computational interpretation to the proofs of LCM. The computational content of LCMp ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The notion of LimitComputable Mathematics (LCM) will be introduced. LCM is a fragment of classical mathematics in which the law of excluded middle is restricted to 1 0 2 formulas. We can give an accountable computational interpretation to the proofs of LCM. The computational content of LCMproofs is given by Gold's limiting recursive functions, which is the fundamental notion of learning theory. LCM is expected to be a right means for "Proof Animation," which was introduced by the first author [10]. LCM is related not only to learning theory and recursion theory, but also to many areas in mathematics and computer science such as computational algebra, computability theories in analysis, reverse mathematics, and many others.
ATS/LF: a type system for constructing proofs as total functional programs
, 2004
"... The development of Applied Type System (ATS) [36, 31] stems from an earlier attempt to introduce dependent types into practical programming [38, 37]. While there is already a framework Pure Type System [4] (PTS) that offers a simple and general approach to designing and formalizing type systems, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The development of Applied Type System (ATS) [36, 31] stems from an earlier attempt to introduce dependent types into practical programming [38, 37]. While there is already a framework Pure Type System [4] (PTS) that offers a simple and general approach to designing and formalizing type systems,
Discovery and Deduction
, 2000
"... Deduction is usually considered to be the opposite of induction. However, deduction and induction can be related in many ways. In this paper, two endeavors that try to relate discovery science and verification technology are described. The first is discovery by deduction, where attempts to find algo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Deduction is usually considered to be the opposite of induction. However, deduction and induction can be related in many ways. In this paper, two endeavors that try to relate discovery science and verification technology are described. The first is discovery by deduction, where attempts to find algorithms are made using verifiers. Case studies of finding algorithms for concurrent garbage collection and for mutual exclusion without semaphores are described. Superoptimization can also be classified as work in this field. Recent work on finding authentication protocols using a protocol verifier is also briefly surveyed. The second endeavor is discovery for deduction. This concerns the longstanding problem of finding induction formulae or loop invariants. The problem is regarded as one of learning from positive data, and the notion of safe generalization, which is commonly recognized in learning from positive data, is introduced into iterative computation of loop invariants. The si...
On the Proof Theory of Applicative Theories
 PHD THESIS, INSTITUT FÜR INFORMATIK UND ANGEWANDTE MATHEMATIK, UNIVERSITÄT
, 1996
"... ..."
Tool Support for Proof Engineering
"... Modern integrated development environments (IDEs) provide programmers with a variety of sophisticated tools for program visualization and manipulation. These tools assist the programmer in understanding legacy code and making coordinated changes across large parts of a program. Similar tools incorpo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Modern integrated development environments (IDEs) provide programmers with a variety of sophisticated tools for program visualization and manipulation. These tools assist the programmer in understanding legacy code and making coordinated changes across large parts of a program. Similar tools incorporated into an integrated proof environment (IPE) would assist proof developers in understanding and manipulating the increasingly larger proofs that are being developed. In this paper we propose some tools and techniques developed for software engineering that we believe would be equally applicable in proof engineering.
Two Extensions of PX system (Extended Abstract)
, 1996
"... Two extensions of PX system will be discussed. The extensions are ctPX (catch/throw PX) and mvPX (multiple values PX). ctPX is a PX system extended with Nakano's catch/throw logic. ctPX enables to extract LISP programs with catch/throw mechanism form natural proofs. mvPX is a PX system which uses mu ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Two extensions of PX system will be discussed. The extensions are ctPX (catch/throw PX) and mvPX (multiple values PX). ctPX is a PX system extended with Nakano's catch/throw logic. ctPX enables to extract LISP programs with catch/throw mechanism form natural proofs. mvPX is a PX system which uses multiple values rather than lists to keep a finite sequences of data. Programs extracted by ctPX are more efficient than the ones by the original PX. 1 Introduction PX system is a proof checker based on Feferman's formal theory of functions and classes. Its main aim is extracting programs from constructive proofs. Thus it is called PX = "Program eXtractor". The activity of developing programs formally by program extraction is dubbed as constructive programming by Masahiko Sato. We will not give detailed accounts on PX system and its use to constructive programming, which are fully described in [1]. PX is an old system built about 10 years ago. In this work, it is used as a platform experiment...
Towards Provably Correct Programming
"... . C lausal Language (CL) is a really used declarative programming and verifying system with an extremely simple semantics (primitive recursive functions). We can in CL prove properties of our programs. This paper is mostly concerned with the combination of programming and verication where one do ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
. C lausal Language (CL) is a really used declarative programming and verifying system with an extremely simple semantics (primitive recursive functions). We can in CL prove properties of our programs. This paper is mostly concerned with the combination of programming and verication where one does the former at the same time as one veri es that a specication is satised. Our contribution is the design of CL and of its proof system where the programming constructs correspond exactly to the proof rules with computational content and so the programs extracted by CL from proofs are as ecient as handprogrammed ones. 1 Introduction The class of eectively computable functions over natural numbers coincides by the thesis of Church with recursive functions as dened by HerbrandGodel style equations. We use the latter as the basis for CL because such denitions oer the programming comfort with almost unrestricted kinds of recursion and the computation of recursive equations b...
DomainTheoretic Methods for Program Synthesis
"... formal proofs. A recent outcome of this analysis is the development of computer systems for automated or interactive theorem proving that can for instance be used for computer aided program verication. An example of such a system is the interactive theorem prover Minlog developed by the logic group ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
formal proofs. A recent outcome of this analysis is the development of computer systems for automated or interactive theorem proving that can for instance be used for computer aided program verication. An example of such a system is the interactive theorem prover Minlog developed by the logic group at the University of Munich (7). As a former member of this group I was mainly involved in the theoretical background steering the implementation of the system. The system also exploits the socalled proofsasprograms paradigm as a logical approach to correct software development: from a formal proof that a certain specication has a solution one fully automatically extracts a program that provably meets the specication. We carried out a number of extended case studies extracting programs from proofs in areas such as arithmetic (6), graph theory (7), innitary combinatorics (7), and lambda calculus (1,2). Special emphasis has been put on an ecient implemen
Extraction of Efficient Programs in ...Arithmetic
"... C lausal Language (CL) is a declarative programming and verifying system used in our teaching of computer science. CL is an implementation of, what we call, PR+I1 paradigm (primitive recursive functions with I1arithmetic). This paper introduces an extension of I1proofs called extraction proofs ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
C lausal Language (CL) is a declarative programming and verifying system used in our teaching of computer science. CL is an implementation of, what we call, PR+I1 paradigm (primitive recursive functions with I1arithmetic). This paper introduces an extension of I1proofs called extraction proofs where one can extract from the proofs of 2speci cations primitive recursive programs as ecient as the handcoded ones. This is achieved by having the programming constructs correspond exactly to the proof rules with the computational content.