Results 1  10
of
287
A Framework for Defining Logics
 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY
, 1993
"... The Edinburgh Logical Framework (LF) provides a means to define (or present) logics. It is based on a general treatment of syntax, rules, and proofs by means of a typed calculus with dependent types. Syntax is treated in a style similar to, but more general than, MartinLof's system of ariti ..."
Abstract

Cited by 755 (39 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Edinburgh Logical Framework (LF) provides a means to define (or present) logics. It is based on a general treatment of syntax, rules, and proofs by means of a typed calculus with dependent types. Syntax is treated in a style similar to, but more general than, MartinLof's system of arities. The treatment of rules and proofs focuses on his notion of a judgement. Logics are represented in LF via a new principle, the judgements as types principle, whereby each judgement is identified with the type of its proofs. This allows for a smooth treatment of discharge and variable occurrence conditions and leads to a uniform treatment of rules and proofs whereby rules are viewed as proofs of higherorder judgements and proof checking is reduced to type checking. The practical benefit of our treatment of formal systems is that logicindependent tools such as proof editors and proof checkers can be constructed.
Primitive Recursion for HigherOrder Abstract Syntax
 Theoretical Computer Science
, 1997
"... ..."
(Show Context)
Infinite Objects in Type Theory
"... . We show that infinite objects can be constructively understood without the consideration of partial elements, or greatest fixedpoints, through the explicit consideration of proof objects. We present then a proof system based on these explanations. According to this analysis, the proof expressions ..."
Abstract

Cited by 99 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
. We show that infinite objects can be constructively understood without the consideration of partial elements, or greatest fixedpoints, through the explicit consideration of proof objects. We present then a proof system based on these explanations. According to this analysis, the proof expressions should have the same structure as the program expressions of a pure functional lazy language: variable, constructor, application, abstraction, case expressions, and local let expressions. 1 Introduction The usual explanation of infinite objects relies on the use of greatest fixedpoints of monotone operators, whose existence is justified by the impredicative proof of Tarski's fixed point theorem. The proof theory of such infinite objects, based on the so called coinduction principle, originally due to David Park [21] and explained with this name for instance in the paper [18], reflects this explanation. Constructively, to rely on such impredicative methods is somewhat unsatisfactory (see fo...
Grammatical Framework: A TypeTheoretical Grammar Formalism
, 2003
"... Grammatical Framework (GF) is a specialpurpose functional language for defining grammars. It uses a Logical Framework (LF) for a description of abstract syntax, and adds to this a notation for defining concrete syntax. GF grammars themselves are purely declarative, but can be used both for lineariz ..."
Abstract

Cited by 90 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Grammatical Framework (GF) is a specialpurpose functional language for defining grammars. It uses a Logical Framework (LF) for a description of abstract syntax, and adds to this a notation for defining concrete syntax. GF grammars themselves are purely declarative, but can be used both for linearizing syntax trees and parsing strings. GF can describe both formal and natural languages. The key notion of this description is a grammatical object, which is not just a string, but a record that contains all information on inflection and inherent grammatical features such as number and gender in natural languages, or precedence in formal languages. Grammatical objects have a type system, which helps to eliminate runtime errors in language processing. In the same way as an LF, GF uses...
Automating the Meta Theory of Deductive Systems
, 2000
"... not be interpreted as representing the o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of NSF or the U.S. Government. This thesis describes the design of a metalogical framework that supports the representation and veri cation of deductive systems, its implementation as an automated theorem prover, a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 87 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
not be interpreted as representing the o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of NSF or the U.S. Government. This thesis describes the design of a metalogical framework that supports the representation and veri cation of deductive systems, its implementation as an automated theorem prover, and experimental results related to the areas of programming languages, type theory, and logics. Design: The metalogical framework extends the logical framework LF [HHP93] by a metalogic M + 2. This design is novel and unique since it allows higherorder encodings of deductive systems and induction principles to coexist. On the one hand, higherorder representation techniques lead to concise and direct encodings of programming languages and logic calculi. Inductive de nitions on the other hand allow the formalization of properties about deductive systems, such as the proof that an operational semantics preserves types or the proof that a logic is is a proof calculus whose proof terms are recursive functions that may be consistent.M +
On Equivalence and Canonical Forms in the LF Type Theory
"... Decidability of definitional equality and conversion of terms into canonical form play a central role in the metatheory of a typetheoretic logical framework. Most studies of definitional equality are based on a confluent, stronglynormalizing notion of reduction. Coquand has considered a different ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Decidability of definitional equality and conversion of terms into canonical form play a central role in the metatheory of a typetheoretic logical framework. Most studies of definitional equality are based on a confluent, stronglynormalizing notion of reduction. Coquand has considered a different approach, directly proving the correctness of a practical equivalance algorithm based on the shape of terms. Neither approach appears to scale well to richer languages with, for example, unit types or subtyping, and neither provides a notion of canonical form suitable for proving adequacy of encodings. In this paper we present a new, typedirected equivalence algorithm for the LF type theory that overcomes the weaknesses of previous approaches. The algorithm is practical, scales to richer languages, and yields a new notion of canonical form sufficient for adequate encodings of logical systems. The algorithm is proved complete by a Kripkestyle logical relations argument similar to that suggested by Coquand. Crucially, both the algorithm itself and the logical relations rely only on the shapes of types, ignoring dependencies on terms.
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 ar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 74 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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...