Results 1 
6 of
6
Reflections on Standard ML
 FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING, CONCURRENCY, SIMULATION AND AUTOMATED REASONING, VOLUME 693 OF LNCS
, 1992
"... Standard ML is one of a number of new programming languages developed in the 1980s that are seen as suitable vehicles for serious systems and applications programming. It offers an excellent ratio of expressiveness to language complexity, and provides competitive efficiency. Because of its type an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 198 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Standard ML is one of a number of new programming languages developed in the 1980s that are seen as suitable vehicles for serious systems and applications programming. It offers an excellent ratio of expressiveness to language complexity, and provides competitive efficiency. Because of its type and module system, Standard ML manages to combine safety, security, and robustness with much of the flexibility of dynamically typed languages like Lisp. It is also has the most welldeveloped scientific foundation of any major language. Here I review the strengths and weaknesses of Standard ML and describe some of what we have learned through the design, implementation, and use of the language.
Metalogical Frameworks
, 1992
"... In computer science we speak of implementing a logic; this is done in a programming language, such as Lisp, called here the implementation language. We also reason about the logic, as in understanding how to search for proofs; these arguments are expressed in the metalanguage and conducted in the me ..."
Abstract

Cited by 57 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In computer science we speak of implementing a logic; this is done in a programming language, such as Lisp, called here the implementation language. We also reason about the logic, as in understanding how to search for proofs; these arguments are expressed in the metalanguage and conducted in the metalogic of the object language being implemented. We also reason about the implementation itself, say to know it is correct; this is done in a programming logic. How do all these logics relate? This paper considers that question and more. We show that by taking the view that the metalogic is primary, these other parts are related in standard ways. The metalogic should be suitably rich so that the object logic can be presented as an abstract data type, and it must be suitably computational (or constructive) so that an instance of that type is an implementation. The data type abstractly encodes all that is relevant for metareasoning, i.e., not only the term constructing functions but also the...
Modular Structures as Dependent Types in Isabelle
, 1998
"... This paper describes a method of representing algebraic structures in the theorem prover Isabelle. We use Isabelle's higher order logic extended with set theoretic constructions. Dependent types, constructed as HOL sets, are used to represent modular structures by semantical embedding. The modul ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper describes a method of representing algebraic structures in the theorem prover Isabelle. We use Isabelle's higher order logic extended with set theoretic constructions. Dependent types, constructed as HOL sets, are used to represent modular structures by semantical embedding. The modules remain first class citizen of the logic. Hence, they enable adequate formalization of abstract algebraic structures and a natural proof style. Application examples drawn from abstract algebra and lattice theory  the full version of Tarski's fixpoint theorem  validate the concept.
Proof Representations in Theorem Provers
, 1998
"... s and compressed postscript files are available via http://svrc.it.uq.edu.au Proof Representations in Theorem Provers Geoffrey Norman Watson Abstract This is a survey of some of the proof representations used by current theorem provers. The aim of the survey is to ascertain the range of mechani ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
s and compressed postscript files are available via http://svrc.it.uq.edu.au Proof Representations in Theorem Provers Geoffrey Norman Watson Abstract This is a survey of some of the proof representations used by current theorem provers. The aim of the survey is to ascertain the range of mechanisms used to represent proofs and the purposes to which these representations are put. This is done within a simple framework. It examines both internal and external representations, although the focus is on representations that could be exported to an external proof checker. A number of examples from various provers are given in a series of appendices. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Aim of the Survey 3 2.1 Why Construct Proofs . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Levels of Representation . . . . . . . . 4 3 Scope of the Survey 5 3.1 Ergo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 HOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 Isabelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 Nuprl . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Impredicative Representations of Categorical Datatypes
, 1994
"... this document that certain implications are not based on a well stated formal theory but require a certain amount of handwaving. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
this document that certain implications are not based on a well stated formal theory but require a certain amount of handwaving.