Results 1  10
of
35
The Abella interactive theorem prover (system description
 In Fourth International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning
, 2008
"... Abella [3] is an interactive system for reasoning about aspects of object languages that have been formally presented through recursive rules based on syntactic structure. Abella utilizes a twolevel logic approach to specification and reasoning. One level is defined by a specification logic which s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abella [3] is an interactive system for reasoning about aspects of object languages that have been formally presented through recursive rules based on syntactic structure. Abella utilizes a twolevel logic approach to specification and reasoning. One level is defined by a specification logic which supports a transparent
Induction and coinduction in sequent calculus
 Postproceedings of TYPES 2003, number 3085 in LNCS
, 2003
"... Abstract. Proof search has been used to specify a wide range of computation systems. In order to build a framework for reasoning about such specifications, we make use of a sequent calculus involving induction and coinduction. These proof principles are based on a proof theoretic (rather than sett ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Proof search has been used to specify a wide range of computation systems. In order to build a framework for reasoning about such specifications, we make use of a sequent calculus involving induction and coinduction. These proof principles are based on a proof theoretic (rather than settheoretic) notion of definition [13, 20, 25, 51]. Definitions are akin to (stratified) logic programs, where the left and right rules for defined atoms allow one to view theories as “closed ” or defining fixed points. The use of definitions makes it possible to reason intensionally about syntax, in particular enforcing free equality via unification. We add in a consistent way rules for pre and post fixed points, thus allowing the user to reason inductively and coinductively about properties of computational system making full use of higherorder abstract syntax. Consistency is guaranteed via cutelimination, where we give the first, to our knowledge, cutelimination procedure in the presence of general inductive and coinductive definitions. 1
Algorithmic specifications in linear logic with subexponentials
 In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP
, 2009
"... nigam at lix.polytechnique.fr, dale.miller at inria.fr The linear logic exponentials!, ? are not canonical: one can add to linear logic other such operators, say! l, ? l, which may or may not allow contraction and weakening, and where l is from some preordered set of labels. We shall call these add ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
nigam at lix.polytechnique.fr, dale.miller at inria.fr The linear logic exponentials!, ? are not canonical: one can add to linear logic other such operators, say! l, ? l, which may or may not allow contraction and weakening, and where l is from some preordered set of labels. We shall call these additional operators subexponentials and use them to assign locations to multisets of formulas within a linear logic programming setting. Treating locations as subexponentials greatly increases the algorithmic expressiveness of logic. To illustrate this new expressiveness, we show that focused proof search can be precisely linked to a simple algorithmic specification language that contains whileloops, conditionals, and insertion into and deletion from multisets. We also give some general conditions for when a focused proof step can be executed in constant time. In addition, we propose a new logical connective that allows for the creation of new subexponentials, thereby further augmenting the algorithmic expressiveness of logic.
Proof search specifications of bisimulation and modal logics for the πcalculus
 ACM Trans. on Computational Logic
"... We specify the operational semantics and bisimulation relations for the finite πcalculus within a logic that contains the ∇ quantifier for encoding generic judgments and definitions for encoding fixed points. Since we restrict to the finite case, the ability of the logic to unfold fixed points allo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We specify the operational semantics and bisimulation relations for the finite πcalculus within a logic that contains the ∇ quantifier for encoding generic judgments and definitions for encoding fixed points. Since we restrict to the finite case, the ability of the logic to unfold fixed points allows this logic to be complete for both the inductive nature of operational semantics and the coinductive nature of bisimulation. The ∇ quantifier helps with the delicate issues surrounding the scope of variables within πcalculus expressions and their executions (proofs). We shall illustrate several merits of the logical specifications permitted by this logic: they are natural and declarative; they contain no sideconditions concerning names of variables while maintaining a completely formal treatment of such variables; differences between late and open bisimulation relations arise from familar logic distinctions; the interplay between the three quantifiers (∀, ∃, and ∇) and their scopes can explain the differences between early and late bisimulation and between various modal operators based on bound input and output actions; and proof search involving the application of inference rules, unification, and backtracking can provide complete proof systems for onestep transitions, bisimulation, and satisfaction in modal logic. We also illustrate how one can encode the πcalculus with replications, in an extended logic with induction and coinduction.
A Focused Approach to Combining Logics
, 2010
"... We present a compact sequent calculus LKU for classical logic organized around the concept of polarization. Focused sequent calculi for classical, intuitionistic, and multiplicativeadditive linear logics are derived as fragments of the host system by varying the sensitivity of specialized structura ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a compact sequent calculus LKU for classical logic organized around the concept of polarization. Focused sequent calculi for classical, intuitionistic, and multiplicativeadditive linear logics are derived as fragments of the host system by varying the sensitivity of specialized structural rules to polarity information. We identify a general set of criteria under which cut elimination holds in such fragments. From cut elimination we derive a unified proof of the completeness of focusing. Furthermore, each sublogic can interact with other fragments through cut. We examine certain circumstances, for example, in which a classical lemma can be used in an intuitionistic proof while preserving intuitionistic provability. We also examine the possibility of defining classicallinear hybrid logics.
Focused Inductive Theorem Proving
"... Abstract. Focused proof systems provide means for reducing and structuring the nondeterminism involved in searching for sequent calculus proofs. We present a focused proof system for a firstorder logic with inductive and coinductive definitions in which the introduction rules are partitioned into ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Focused proof systems provide means for reducing and structuring the nondeterminism involved in searching for sequent calculus proofs. We present a focused proof system for a firstorder logic with inductive and coinductive definitions in which the introduction rules are partitioned into an asynchronous phase and a synchronous phase. These focused proofs allows us to naturally see proof search as being organized around interleaving intervals of computation and more general deduction. For example, entire Prologlike computations can be captured using a single synchronous phase and many modelchecking queries can be captured using an asynchronous phase followed by a synchronous phase. Leveraging these ideas, we have developed an interactive proof assistant, called Tac, for this logic. We describe its highlevel design and illustrate how it is capable of automatically proving many theorems using induction and coinduction. Since the automatic proof procedure is structured using focused proofs, its behavior is often rather easy to anticipate and modify. We illustrate the strength of Tac with several examples of proof developments, some achieved entirely automatically and others achieved with user guidance. 1
A proposal for broad spectrum proof certificates
"... Abstract. Recent developments in the theory of focused proof systems provide flexible means for structuring proofs within the sequent calculus. This structuring is organized around the construction of “macro” level inference rules based on the “micro ” inference rules which introduce single logical ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Recent developments in the theory of focused proof systems provide flexible means for structuring proofs within the sequent calculus. This structuring is organized around the construction of “macro” level inference rules based on the “micro ” inference rules which introduce single logical connectives. After presenting focused proof systems for firstorder classical logics (one with and one without fixed points and equality) we illustrate several examples of proof certificates formats that are derived naturally from the structure of such focused proof systems. In principle, a proof certificate contains two parts: the first part describes how macro rules are defined in terms of micro rules and the second part describes a particular proof object using the macro rules. The first part, which is based on the vocabulary of focused proof systems, describes a collection of macro rules that can be used to directly present the structure of proof evidence captured by a particular class of computational logic systems. While such proof certificates can capture a wide variety of proof structures, a proof checker can remain simple since it must only understand the microrules and the discipline of focusing. Since proofs and proof certificates are often likely to be large, there must be some flexibility in allowing proof certificates to elide subproofs: as a result, proof checkers will necessarily be required to perform (bounded) proof search in order to reconstruct missing subproofs. Thus, proof checkers will need to do unification and restricted backtracking search. 1
Finding Unity in Computational Logic
"... While logic was once developed to serve philosophers and mathematicians, it is increasingly serving the varied needs of computer scientists. In fact, recent decades have witnessed the creation of the new discipline of Computational Logic. While Computation Logic can claim involvement in many, divers ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
While logic was once developed to serve philosophers and mathematicians, it is increasingly serving the varied needs of computer scientists. In fact, recent decades have witnessed the creation of the new discipline of Computational Logic. While Computation Logic can claim involvement in many, diverse areas of computing, little has been done to systematize the foundations of this new discipline. Here, we envision a unity for Computational Logic organized around recent developments in the theory of sequent calculus proofs. We outline how new tools and methodologies can be developed around a boarder approach to computational logic. Computational logic, unity of logic, proof theory 1. SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE CORRECTNESS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT Computer systems are everywhere in our societies and their integration with all parts of our lives is constantly increasing. There are a host of computer systems—such as those in cars, airplanes, missiles, hospital equipment—where correctness of software is
Checking foundational proof certificates for firstorder logic
"... We present the design philosophy of a proof checker based on a notion of foundational proof certificates. This checker provides a semantics of proof evidence using recent advances in the theory of proofs for classical and intuitionistic logic. That semantics is then performed by a (higherorder) log ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present the design philosophy of a proof checker based on a notion of foundational proof certificates. This checker provides a semantics of proof evidence using recent advances in the theory of proofs for classical and intuitionistic logic. That semantics is then performed by a (higherorder) logic program: successful performance means that a formal proof of a theorem has been found. We describe how the λProlog programming language provides several features that help guarantee such a soundness claim. Some of these features (such as strong typing, abstract datatypes, and higherorder programming) were features of the ML programming language when it was first proposed as a proof checker for LCF. Other features of λProlog (such as support for bindings, substitution, and backtracking search) turn out to be equally important for describing and checking the proof evidence encoded in proof certificates. Since trusting our proof checker requires trusting a programming language implementation, we discuss various avenues for enhancing one’s trust of such a checker. 1
System description: Abella – A system for reasoning about computations
 In Fourth International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning
, 2008
"... Abella [Gac08] is an interactive theorem prover for reasoning about the properties ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abella [Gac08] is an interactive theorem prover for reasoning about the properties