Results 21  30
of
343
Theory Interpretation in Simple Type Theory
 HIGHERORDER ALGEBRA, LOGIC, AND TERM REWRITING, VOLUME 816 OF LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 1993
"... Theory interpretation is a logical technique for relating one axiomatic theory to another with important applications in mathematics and computer science as well as in logic itself. This paper presents a method for theory interpretation in a version of simple type theory, called lutins, which admit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 36 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Theory interpretation is a logical technique for relating one axiomatic theory to another with important applications in mathematics and computer science as well as in logic itself. This paper presents a method for theory interpretation in a version of simple type theory, called lutins, which admits partial functions and subtypes. The method is patterned on the standard approach to theory interpretation in rstorder logic. Although the method is based on a nonclassical version of simple type theory, it is intended as a guide for theory interpretation in classical simple type theories as well as in predicate logics with partial functions.
PDS  A ThreeDimensional Data Structure for Proof Plans
 PROC. OF ACIDCA'2000
, 2000
"... We present a new data structure that enables to store threedimensional proof objects in a proof development environment. The aim is to handle calculus level proofs as well as abstract proof plans together with information of their correspondences in a single structure. This enables not only differe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 36 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present a new data structure that enables to store threedimensional proof objects in a proof development environment. The aim is to handle calculus level proofs as well as abstract proof plans together with information of their correspondences in a single structure. This enables not only different means of the proof development environment (e.g., rule and tacticbased theorem proving, or proof planning) to act directly on the same proof object but it also allows for easy presentation of proofs on different levels of abstraction. However, the threedimensional structure requires adjustment of the regular techniques for addition and deletion of proof lines and backtracking of the proof planner.
Cryptographically Sound Theorem Proving
 In Proc. 19th IEEE CSFW
, 2006
"... We describe a faithful embedding of the DolevYao model of Backes, Pfitzmann, and Waidner (CCS 2003) in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL. This model is cryptographically sound in the strong sense of reactive simulatability/UC, which essentially entails the preservation of arbitrary security proper ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We describe a faithful embedding of the DolevYao model of Backes, Pfitzmann, and Waidner (CCS 2003) in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL. This model is cryptographically sound in the strong sense of reactive simulatability/UC, which essentially entails the preservation of arbitrary security properties under active attacks and in arbitrary protocol environments. The main challenge in designing a practical formalization of this model is to cope with the complexity of providing such strong soundness guarantees. We reduce this complexity by abstracting the model into a sound, lightweight formalization that enables both concise property specifications and efficient application of our proof strategies and their supporting proof tools. This yields the first toolsupported framework for symbolically verifying security protocols that enjoys the strong cryptographic soundness guarantees provided by reactive simulatability/UC. As a proof of concept, we have proved the security of the NeedhamSchroederLowe protocol using our framework.
The TPS theorem proving system
 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Argonne, Illinois
, 1988
"... TPS is a theorem proving system for first and higherorder logic which runs in Common Lisp and can operate in automatic, semiautomatic, and interactive modes. As its logical language TPS uses the typed Acalculus [6], in which most theorems of mathematics can be expressed very directly. TPS can be ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
TPS is a theorem proving system for first and higherorder logic which runs in Common Lisp and can operate in automatic, semiautomatic, and interactive modes. As its logical language TPS uses the typed Acalculus [6], in which most theorems of mathematics can be expressed very directly. TPS can be used to search for an expansion proof [10, 11] of a theorem, which represents in a nonredtmdant way the basic combinatorial information required to construct a proof of
Towards Selfverification of HOL Light
 In International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning
, 2006
"... Abstract. The HOL Light prover is based on a logical kernel consisting of about 400 lines of mostly functional OCaml, whose complete formal verification seems to be quite feasible. We would like to formally verify (i) that the abstract HOL logic is indeed correct, and (ii) that the OCaml code does c ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. The HOL Light prover is based on a logical kernel consisting of about 400 lines of mostly functional OCaml, whose complete formal verification seems to be quite feasible. We would like to formally verify (i) that the abstract HOL logic is indeed correct, and (ii) that the OCaml code does correctly implement this logic. We have performed a full verification of an imperfect but quite detailed model of the basic HOL Light core, without definitional mechanisms, and this verification is entirely conducted with respect to a settheoretic semantics within HOL Light itself. We will duly explain why the obvious logical and pragmatic difficulties do not vitiate this approach, even though it looks impossible or useless at first sight. Extension to include definitional mechanisms seems straightforward enough, and the results so far allay most of our practical worries. 1 Introduction: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Mathematical proofs are subjected to peer review before publication, but there
A blackboard architecture for guiding interactive proofs
 Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems and Applications
, 1998
"... Abstract. The acceptance and usability of current interactive theorem proving environments is, among other things, strongly influenced by the availability of an intelligent default suggestion mechanism for commands. Such mechanisms support the user by decreasing the necessary interactions during the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. The acceptance and usability of current interactive theorem proving environments is, among other things, strongly influenced by the availability of an intelligent default suggestion mechanism for commands. Such mechanisms support the user by decreasing the necessary interactions during the proof construction. Although many systems offer such facilities, they are often limited in their functionality. In this paper we present a new agentbased mechanism that independently observes the proof state, steadily computes suggestions on how to further construct the proof, and communicates these suggestions to the user via a graphical user interface. We furthermore introduce a focus technique in order to restrict the search space when deriving default suggestions. Although the agents we discuss in this paper are rather simple from a computational viewpoint, we indicate how the presented approach can be extended in order to increase its deductive power. 1
Symbolic Computation: Computer Algebra and Logic
 Frontiers of Combining Systems, Applied Logic Series
, 1996
"... In this paper we present our personal view of what should be the next step in the development of symbolic computation systems. The main point is that future systems should integrate the power of algebra and logic. We identify four gaps between the future ideal and the systems available at present: t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we present our personal view of what should be the next step in the development of symbolic computation systems. The main point is that future systems should integrate the power of algebra and logic. We identify four gaps between the future ideal and the systems available at present: the logic, the syntax, the mathematics, and the prover gap, respectively. We discuss higher order logic without extensionality and with set theory as a subtheory as a logic frame for future systems and we propose to start from existing computer algebra systems and proceed by adding new facilities for closing the syntax, mathematics, and the prover gaps. Mathematica seems to be a particularly suitable candidate for such an approach. As the main technique for structuring mathematical knowledge, mathematical methods (including algorithms), and also mathematical proofs, we underline the practical importance of functors and show how they can be naturally embedded into Mathematica. 1 The Next Goal ...
Combining WS1S and HOL
 Frontiers of Combining Systems 2, volume 7 of Studies in Logic and Computation
, 1998
"... We investigate the combination of the weak secondorder monadic logic of one successor (WS1S) with higherorder logic (HOL). We show how these two logics can be combined, how theorem provers based on them can be safely integrated, and how the result can be used. In particular, we present an embeddin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate the combination of the weak secondorder monadic logic of one successor (WS1S) with higherorder logic (HOL). We show how these two logics can be combined, how theorem provers based on them can be safely integrated, and how the result can be used. In particular, we present an embedding of the semantics of WS1S in HOL that provides a basis for coupling the MONA system, a decision procedure for WS1S, with an implementation of HOL in the Isabelle system. Afterwards, we describe methods that reduce problems formalized in HOL to problems in the language of WS1S. We present applications to arithmetic reasoning and proving properties of parameterized sequential systems.
An integrated proof language for imperative programs
 In PLDI’09
"... We present an integrated proof language for guiding the actions of multiple reasoning systems as they work together to prove complex correctness properties of imperative programs. The language operates in the context of a program verification system that uses multiple reasoning systems to discharge ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present an integrated proof language for guiding the actions of multiple reasoning systems as they work together to prove complex correctness properties of imperative programs. The language operates in the context of a program verification system that uses multiple reasoning systems to discharge generated proof obligations. It is designed to 1) enable developers to resolve key choice points in complex program correctness proofs, thereby enabling automated reasoning systems to successfully prove the desired correctness properties; 2) allow developers to identify key lemmas for the reasoning systems to prove, thereby guiding the reasoning systems to find an effective proof decomposition; 3) enable multiple reasoning systems to work together productively to prove a single correctness property by providing a mechanism that developers can use to divide the property into lemmas, each of which is suitable for