LF is a dependent type theory in which many other formal systems can be conveniently embedded. However, correct use of LF relies on nontrivial metatheoretic developments such as proofs of correctness of decision procedures for LF’s judgments. Although detailed informal proofs of these properties have been published, they have not been formally verified in a theorem prover. We have formalized these properties within Isabelle/HOL using the Nominal Datatype Package, closely following a recent article by Harper and Pfenning. In the process, we identified and resolved a gap in one of the proofs and a small number of minor lacunae in others. Besides its intrinsic interest, our formalization provides a foundation for studying the adequacy of LF encodings, the correctness of Twelf-style metatheoretic reasoning, and the metatheory of extensions to LF.

The Hybrid system (Ambler et al., 2002b), implemented within Isabelle/HOL, allows object logics to be represented using higher order abstract syntax (HOAS), and reasoned about using tactical theorem proving in general and principles of (co)induction in particular. The form of HOAS provided by Hybrid is essentially a lambda calculus with constants. Of fundamental interest is the form of the lambda abstractions provided by Hybrid. The user has the convenience of writing lambda abstractions using names for the binding variables. However each abstraction is actually a definition of a de Bruijn expression, and Hybrid can unwind the user’s abstractions (written with names) to machine friendly de Bruijn expressions (without names). In this sense the formal system contains a hybrid of named and nameless bound variable notation. In this paper, we present a formal theory in a logical framework which can be viewed as a model of core Hybrid, and state and prove that the model is representationally adequate for HOAS. In particular, it is the canonical translation function from λ-expressions to Hybrid that witnesses adequacy. We also prove two results that characterise how Hybrid represents certain classes of λ-expressions. The Hybrid system contains a number of different syntactic classes of expression, and associated abstraction mechanisms. Hence this paper also aims to provide a self-contained theoretical introduction to both the syntax and key ideas of the system; background in automated theorem proving is not essential, although this paper will be of considerable interest to those who wish to work with Hybrid in Isabelle/HOL.

We introduce weak binders, a lightweight construct to deal with fresh names in nominal calculi. Weak binders do not define the scope of names as precisely as the standard ν-binders, yet they enjoy strong semantic properties. We provide them with a denotational semantics, an equational theory, and a trace inclusion preorder. Furthermore, we present a trace-preserving mapping between weak binders and ν-binders.

LF is a dependent type theory in which many other formal systems can be conveniently embedded. However, correct use of LF relies on nontrivial metatheoretic developments such as proofs of correctness of decision procedures for LF’s judgments. Although detailed informal proofs of these properties have been published, they have not been formally verified in a theorem prover. We have formalized these properties within Isabelle/HOL using the Nominal Datatype Package, closely following a recent article by Harper and Pfenning. In the process, we identified and resolved a gap in one of the proofs and a small number of minor lacunae in others. We also formally derive a version of the type checking algorithm from which Isabelle/HOL can generate executable code. Besides its intrinsic interest, our formalization provides a foundation for studying the adequacy of LF encodings, the correctness of Twelf-style metatheoretic reasoning, and the metatheory of extensions to LF.

Programming languages and logics, which are pervasive in Computer Science, have syntax which involves variable binding constructors. As such, reasoning about such languages in general, and formal reasoning in particular (such as within a theorem prover), requires frameworks within which the syntax may be properly represented. One key requirement is a correct representation of α-equivalence. The current literature provides a number of different definitions of the notion of α-equivalence. The formal definitions may be nameless as in the approach of de Bruijn, or have explicit names, as in the approaches that use either a renaming/substitution axiom, or instead use a notion of variable swapping. The first contribution of this paper is to draw together five definitions of α-equivalence relations and to prove formally and in detail, but using mathematics, that the relations are all equal. There are two key reasons for doing this: Firstly, the literature has many examples of proofs of results involving α-equivalence which contain technical errors. Such examples concern both the application of α-equivalence, and the meta-theory of α-equivalence itself. Secondly, the literature does not currently contain detailed presentations of such results. The point of giving the detail is partly to avoid falling into common error-traps, but mainly to provide clear mathematical machinery that will be useful to those working in the area. This includes systems of inductive rules and proofs by induction, and clear accounts of the key lemmas that support the main proofs. The second contribution is to provide two definitions of α-equivalence relations over (program) contexts, namely expressions with a single meta-variable (or “hole”). One of the definitions is already in the literature, and the other is new. We prove some basic properties of α-equivalence on contexts, and show that the two definitions give rise to the same relation.

Abstract. We present BiCoq3, a deep embedding of the B system in Coq, focusing on the technical aspects of the development. The main subjects discussed are related to the representation of sets and maps, the use of induction principles, and the introduction of a new de Bruijn notation providing solutions to various problems related to the mechanisation of languages and logics. Key words: formal methods, deep embedding, de Bruijn notation Embedding a language or a logic is now a well-established practice in the academic community, to answer various types of concerns, e.g. normalisation of terms and influence of reduction strategies for a programming language or consistency for a logic. It indeed supports such meta-theoretical analyses as well as comparing and promoting interesting concepts and features of other languages, or developing mechanically checked tools to deal with a language. But a lot of difficulties arise that have to be addressed. First of all, an important design choice has to be made between shallow and deep approaches,