Results 11  20
of
206
Experiments with Proof Plans for Induction
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1992
"... The technique of proof plans, is explained. This technique is used to guide automatic inference in order to avoid a combinatorial explosion. Empirical research is described to test this technique in the domain of theorem proving by mathematical induction. Heuristics, adapted from the work of Boye ..."
Abstract

Cited by 93 (31 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The technique of proof plans, is explained. This technique is used to guide automatic inference in order to avoid a combinatorial explosion. Empirical research is described to test this technique in the domain of theorem proving by mathematical induction. Heuristics, adapted from the work of Boyer and Moore, have been implemented as Prolog programs, called tactics, and used to guide an inductive proof checker, Oyster. These tactics have been partially specified in a metalogic, and the plan formation program, clam, has been used to reason with these specifications and form plans. These plans are then executed by running their associated tactics and, hence, performing an Oyster proof. Results are presented of the use of this technique on a number of standard theorems from the literature. Searching in the planning space is shown to be considerably cheaper than searching directly in Oyster's search space. The success rate on the standard theorems is high. Keywords Theorem prov...
Using Parameterized Signatures to Express Modular Structure
 POPL'96
, 1996
"... Module systems are a powerful, practical tool for managing the complexity of large software systems. Previous attempts to formulate a typetheoretic foundation for modular programming have been based on existential, dependent, or manifest types. These approaches can be distinguished by their use of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 67 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Module systems are a powerful, practical tool for managing the complexity of large software systems. Previous attempts to formulate a typetheoretic foundation for modular programming have been based on existential, dependent, or manifest types. These approaches can be distinguished by their use of different quantifiers to package the operations that a module exports together with appropriate implementation types. In each case, the underlying type theory is simple and elegant, but significant and sometimes complex extensions are needed to account for features that are im portant in practical systems, such as separate compilation and propagation of type information between modules. This paper presents a simple typetheoretic fi'amework for modular programming using parameterized signatmes. The use of quantifiers is treated as a necessary, but independent concern. Using familiar concepts of polymorphism, the resulting module system is easy to understaud and admits true separate compilation. It is also very powerful, supporting highorder, polymorphic, and firstclass modules without further extension.
A Categorical Programming Language
, 1987
"... A theory of data types and a programming language based on category theory are presented. Data types play a crucial role in programming. They enable us to write programs easily and elegantly. Various programming languages have been developed, each of which may use different kinds of data types. Ther ..."
Abstract

Cited by 66 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A theory of data types and a programming language based on category theory are presented. Data types play a crucial role in programming. They enable us to write programs easily and elegantly. Various programming languages have been developed, each of which may use different kinds of data types. Therefore, it becomes important to organize data types systematically so that we can understand the relationship between one data type and another and investigate future directions which lead us to discover exciting new data types. There have been several approaches to systematically organize data types: algebraic specification methods using algebras, domain theory using complete partially ordered sets and type theory using the connection between logics and data types. Here, we use category theory. Category theory has proved to be remarkably good at revealing the nature of mathematical objects, and we use it to understand the true nature of data types in programming.
Inductive Families
 Formal Aspects of Computing
, 1997
"... A general formulation of inductive and recursive definitions in MartinLof's type theory is presented. It extends Backhouse's `DoItYourself Type Theory' to include inductive definitions of families of sets and definitions of functions by recursion on the way elements of such sets are generated. Th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 65 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A general formulation of inductive and recursive definitions in MartinLof's type theory is presented. It extends Backhouse's `DoItYourself Type Theory' to include inductive definitions of families of sets and definitions of functions by recursion on the way elements of such sets are generated. The formulation is in natural deduction and is intended to be a natural generalization to type theory of MartinLof's theory of iterated inductive definitions in predicate logic. Formal criteria are given for correct formation and introduction rules of a new set former capturing definition by strictly positive, iterated, generalized induction. Moreover, there is an inversion principle for deriving elimination and equality rules from the formation and introduction rules. Finally, there is an alternative schematic presentation of definition by recursion. The resulting theory is a flexible and powerful language for programming and constructive mathematics. We hint at the wealth of possible applic...
A General Formulation of Simultaneous InductiveRecursive Definitions in Type Theory
 Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 1998
"... The first example of a simultaneous inductiverecursive definition in intuitionistic type theory is MartinLöf's universe à la Tarski. A set U0 of codes for small sets is generated inductively at the same time as a function T0 , which maps a code to the corresponding small set, is defined by recursi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 65 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The first example of a simultaneous inductiverecursive definition in intuitionistic type theory is MartinLöf's universe à la Tarski. A set U0 of codes for small sets is generated inductively at the same time as a function T0 , which maps a code to the corresponding small set, is defined by recursion on the way the elements of U0 are generated. In this paper we argue that there is an underlying general notion of simultaneous inductiverecursive definition which is implicit in MartinLöf's intuitionistic type theory. We extend previously given schematic formulations of inductive definitions in type theory to encompass a general notion of simultaneous inductionrecursion. This enables us to give a unified treatment of several interesting constructions including various universe constructions by Palmgren, Griffor, Rathjen, and Setzer and a constructive version of Aczel's Frege structures. Consistency of a restricted version of the extension is shown by constructing a realisability model ...
The origins of structural operational semantics
 Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming
, 2004
"... We review the origins of structural operational semantics. The main publication ‘A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, ’ also known as the ‘Aarhus Notes, ’ appeared in 1981 [G.D. Plotkin, A structural approach to operational semantics, DAIMI FN19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus Unive ..."
Abstract

Cited by 64 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We review the origins of structural operational semantics. The main publication ‘A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, ’ also known as the ‘Aarhus Notes, ’ appeared in 1981 [G.D. Plotkin, A structural approach to operational semantics, DAIMI FN19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1981]. The development of the ideas dates back to the early 1970s, involving many people and building on previous work on programming languages and logic. The former included abstract syntax, the SECD machine, and the abstract interpreting machines of the Vienna school; the latter included the λcalculus and formal systems. The initial development of structural operational semantics was for simple functional languages, more or less variations of the λcalculus; after that the ideas were gradually extended to include languages with parallel features, such as Milner’s CCS. This experience set the ground for a more systematic exposition, the subject of an invited course of lectures at Aarhus University; some of these appeared in print as the 1981 Notes. We discuss the content of these lectures and some related considerations such as ‘small state’ versus ‘grand state, ’ structural versus compositional semantics, the influence of the Scott–Strachey approach to denotational semantics, the treatment of recursion and jumps, and static semantics. We next discuss relations with other work and some immediate further development. We conclude with an account of an old, previously unpublished, idea: an alternative, perhaps more readable, graphical presentation of systems of rules for operational semantics.
Semantic Type Qualifiers
, 2005
"... We present a new approach for supporting userdefined type refinements, which augment existing types to specify and check additional invariants of interest to programmers. We provide an expressive language in which users define new refinements and associated type rules. These rules are automatically ..."
Abstract

Cited by 59 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a new approach for supporting userdefined type refinements, which augment existing types to specify and check additional invariants of interest to programmers. We provide an expressive language in which users define new refinements and associated type rules. These rules are automatically incorporated by an extensible typechecker during static typechecking of programs. Separately, a soundness checker automatically proves that each refinement’s type rules ensure the intended invariant, for all possible programs. We have formalized our approach and have instantiated it as a framework for adding new type qualifiers to C programs. We have used this framework to define and automatically prove sound a host of type qualifiers of different sorts, including pos and neg for integers,tainted anduntainted for strings, andnonnull and unique for pointers, and we have applied our qualifiers to ensure important invariants on opensource C programs.
Abstract types and the dot notation
 Proceedings IFIP TC2 working conference on programming concepts and methods
, 1990
"... We investigate the use of the dot notation in the context of abstract types. The dot notation—that is, a.f referring to the operation f provided by the abstraction a—is used by programming languages such as Modula2 and CLU. We compare this notation with the MitchellPlotkin approach, which draws a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate the use of the dot notation in the context of abstract types. The dot notation—that is, a.f referring to the operation f provided by the abstraction a—is used by programming languages such as Modula2 and CLU. We compare this notation with the MitchellPlotkin approach, which draws a parallel between type abstraction and (weak) existential quantification in constructive logic. The basic operations on existentials coming from logic give new insights about the meaning of type abstraction, but differ completely from the more familiar dot notation. In this paper, we formalize simple calculi equipped with the dot notation, and relate them to a more classical calculus à la Mitchell and Plotkin. This work provides some theoretical foundations for the dot notation, and suggests some useful extensions.
Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: A Survey and Critique
, 1995
"... One way to ensure correctness of the inference performed by computer theorem provers is to force all proofs to be done step by step in a simple, more or less traditional, deductive system. Using techniques pioneered in Edinburgh LCF, this can be made palatable. However, some believe such an appro ..."
Abstract

Cited by 53 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
One way to ensure correctness of the inference performed by computer theorem provers is to force all proofs to be done step by step in a simple, more or less traditional, deductive system. Using techniques pioneered in Edinburgh LCF, this can be made palatable. However, some believe such an approach will never be efficient enough for large, complex proofs. One alternative, commonly called reflection, is to analyze proofs using a second layer of logic, a metalogic, and so justify abbreviating or simplifying proofs, making the kinds of shortcuts humans often do or appealing to specialized decision algorithms. In this paper we contrast the fullyexpansive LCF approach with the use of reflection. We put forward arguments to suggest that the inadequacy of the LCF approach has not been adequately demonstrated, and neither has the practical utility of reflection (notwithstanding its undoubted intellectual interest). The LCF system with which we are most concerned is the HOL proof ...
Indexed InductionRecursion
, 2001
"... We give two nite axiomatizations of indexed inductiverecursive de nitions in intuitionistic type theory. They extend our previous nite axiomatizations of inductiverecursive de nitions of sets to indexed families of sets and encompass virtually all de nitions of sets which have been used in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We give two nite axiomatizations of indexed inductiverecursive de nitions in intuitionistic type theory. They extend our previous nite axiomatizations of inductiverecursive de nitions of sets to indexed families of sets and encompass virtually all de nitions of sets which have been used in intuitionistic type theory. The more restricted of the two axiomatization arises naturally by considering indexed inductiverecursive de nitions as initial algebras in slice categories, whereas the other admits a more general and convenient form of an introduction rule.