Results 11  20
of
56
SourceLevel Proof Reconstruction for Interactive Theorem Proving
"... Abstract. Interactive proof assistants should verify the proofs they receive from automatic theorem provers. Normally this proof reconstruction takes place internally, forming part of the integration between the two tools. We have implemented sourcelevel proof reconstruction: resolution proofs are ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Interactive proof assistants should verify the proofs they receive from automatic theorem provers. Normally this proof reconstruction takes place internally, forming part of the integration between the two tools. We have implemented sourcelevel proof reconstruction: resolution proofs are automatically translated to Isabelle proof scripts. Users can insert this text into their proof development or (if they wish) examine it manually. Each step of a proof is justified by calling Hurd’s Metis prover, which we have ported to Isabelle. A recurrent issue in this project is the treatment of Isabelle’s axiomatic type classes. 1
Axiomatic constructor classes in Isabelle/HOLCF
 In In Proc. 18th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs ’05), Volume 3603 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2005
"... Abstract. We have definitionally extended Isabelle/HOLCF to support axiomatic Haskellstyle constructor classes. We have subsequently defined the functor and monad classes, together with their laws, and implemented state and resumption monad transformers as generic constructor class instances. This ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We have definitionally extended Isabelle/HOLCF to support axiomatic Haskellstyle constructor classes. We have subsequently defined the functor and monad classes, together with their laws, and implemented state and resumption monad transformers as generic constructor class instances. This is a step towards our goal of giving modular denotational semantics for concurrent lazy functional programming languages, such as GHC Haskell. 1
Extending Sledgehammer with SMT Solvers
"... Abstract. Sledgehammer is a component of Isabelle/HOL that employs firstorder automatic theorem provers (ATPs) to discharge goals arising in interactive proofs. It heuristically selects relevant facts and, if an ATP is successful, produces a snippet that replays the proof in Isabelle. We extended Sl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Sledgehammer is a component of Isabelle/HOL that employs firstorder automatic theorem provers (ATPs) to discharge goals arising in interactive proofs. It heuristically selects relevant facts and, if an ATP is successful, produces a snippet that replays the proof in Isabelle. We extended Sledgehammer to invoke satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solvers as well, exploiting its relevance filter and parallel architecture. Isabelle users are now pleasantly surprised by SMT proofs for problems beyond the ATPs ’ reach. Remarkably, the best SMT solver performs better than the best ATP on most of our benchmarks. 1
A Proof Planning Framework for Isabelle
, 2005
"... Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully formal proofs. This thesis concerns the development and analysis of a novel approach to proof planning that focuses on an explicit representation of choices during search. We embody our approach as a proof planner for the generic proof assistant Isabelle and use the Isar language, which is humanreadable and machinecheckable, to represent proof plans. Within this framework we develop an inductive theorem prover as a case study of our approach to proof planning. Our prover uses the difference reduction heuristic known as rippling to automate the step cases of the inductive proofs. The development of a flexible approach to rippling that supports its various modifications and extensions is the second major focus of this thesis. Here, our inductive theorem prover provides a context in which to evaluate rippling experimentally. This work results in an efficient and powerful inductive theorem prover for Isabelle as well as proposals for further improving the efficiency of rippling. We also draw observations in order
Constructive type classes in Isabelle
 TYPES FOR PROOFS AND PROGRAMS
, 2007
"... We reconsider the wellknown concept of Haskellstyle type classes within the logical framework of Isabelle. So far, axiomatic type classes in Isabelle merely account for the logical aspect as predicates over types, while the operational part is only a convention based on raw overloading. Our more e ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We reconsider the wellknown concept of Haskellstyle type classes within the logical framework of Isabelle. So far, axiomatic type classes in Isabelle merely account for the logical aspect as predicates over types, while the operational part is only a convention based on raw overloading. Our more elaborate approach to constructive type classes provides a seamless integration with Isabelle locales, which are able to manage both operations and logical properties uniformly. Thus we combine the convenience of type classes and the flexibility of locales. Furthermore, we construct dictionary terms derived from notions of the type system. This additional internal structure provides satisfactory foundations of type classes, and supports further applications, such as code generation and export of theories and theorems to environments without type classes.
Type class polymorphism in an institutional framework
 IN JOSÉ FIADEIRO, EDITOR, 17TH WADT, LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 2005
"... Higherorder logic with shallow type class polymorphism is widely used as a specification formalism. Its polymorphic entities (types, operators, axioms) can easily be equipped with a ‘naive ’ semantics defined in terms of collections of instances. However, this semantics has the unpleasant property ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Higherorder logic with shallow type class polymorphism is widely used as a specification formalism. Its polymorphic entities (types, operators, axioms) can easily be equipped with a ‘naive ’ semantics defined in terms of collections of instances. However, this semantics has the unpleasant property that while model reduction preserves satisfaction of sentences, model expansion generally does not. In other words, unless further measures are taken, type class polymorphism fails to constitute a proper institution, being only a socalled rps preinstitution; this is unfortunate, as it means that one cannot use institutionindependent or heterogeneous structuring languages, proof calculi, and tools with it. Here, we suggest to remedy this problem by modifying the notion of model to include information also about its potential future extensions. Our construction works at a high level of generality in the sense that it provides, for any preinstitution, an institution in which the original preinstitution can be represented. The semantics of polymorphism used in the specification language HasCasl makes use of this result. In fact, HasCasl’s polymorphism is a special case of a general notion of polymorphism in institutions introduced here, and our construction leads to the right notion of semantic consequence when applied to this generic polymorphism. The appropriateness of the construction for other frameworks that share the same problem depends on methodological questions to be decided case by case. In particular, it turns out that our method is apparently unsuitable for observational logics, while it works well with abstract state machine formalisms such as statebased Casl.
A Comparison of PVS and Isabelle/HOL
 Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, number 1479 in Lect. Notes Comp. Sci
, 1998
"... . There is an overwhelming number of different proof tools available and it is hard to find the right one for a particular application. Manuals usually concentrate on the strong points of a proof tool, but to make a good choice, one should also know (1) which are the weak points and (2) whether the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. There is an overwhelming number of different proof tools available and it is hard to find the right one for a particular application. Manuals usually concentrate on the strong points of a proof tool, but to make a good choice, one should also know (1) which are the weak points and (2) whether the proof tool is suited for the application in hand. This paper gives an initial impetus to a consumers' report on proof tools. The powerful higherorder logic proof tools PVS and Isabelle are compared with respect to several aspects: logic, specification language, prover, soundness, proof manager, user interface (and more). The paper concludes with a list of criteria for judging proof tools, it is applied to both PVS and Isabelle. 1 Introduction There is an overwhelming number of different proof tools available (e.g. in the Database of Existing Mechanised Reasoning Systems one can find references to over 60 proof tools [Dat]). All have particular applications that they are especially suited ...
Encoding Monomorphic and Polymorphic Types
"... Abstract. Most automatic theorem provers are restricted to untyped or monomorphic logics, and existing translations from polymorphic logics are bulky or unsound. Recent research shows how to exploit monotonicity to encode ground types efficiently: monotonic types can be safely erased, while nonmonot ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Most automatic theorem provers are restricted to untyped or monomorphic logics, and existing translations from polymorphic logics are bulky or unsound. Recent research shows how to exploit monotonicity to encode ground types efficiently: monotonic types can be safely erased, while nonmonotonic types must generally be encoded. We extend this work to rank1 polymorphism and show how to eliminate even more clutter. We also present alternative schemes that lighten the translation of polymorphic symbols, based on the novel notion of “cover”. The new encodings are implemented, and partly proved correct, in Isabelle/HOL. Our evaluation finds them vastly superior to previous schemes. 1
Organizing numerical theories using axiomatic type classes
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 2004
"... Mathematical reasoning may involve several arithmetic types, including those of the natural, integer, rational, real and complex numbers. These types satisfy many of the same algebraic laws. These laws need to be made available to users, uniformly and preferably without repetition, but with due acco ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Mathematical reasoning may involve several arithmetic types, including those of the natural, integer, rational, real and complex numbers. These types satisfy many of the same algebraic laws. These laws need to be made available to users, uniformly and preferably without repetition, but with due account for the peculiarities of each type. Subtyping, where a type inherits properties from a supertype, can eliminate repetition only for a fixed type hierarchy set up in advance by implementors. The approach recently adopted for Isabelle uses axiomatic type classes, an established approach to overloading. Abstractions such as semirings, rings, fields and their ordered counterparts are defined and theorems are proved algebraically. Types that meet the abstractions inherit the appropriate theorems. 1
Program Extraction in simplytyped Higher Order Logic
 Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2002), LNCS 2646
, 2002
"... Based on a representation of primitive proof objects as  terms, which has been built into the theorem prover Isabelle recently, we propose a generic framework for program extraction. We show how this framework can be used to extract functional programs from proofs conducted in a constructive fr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Based on a representation of primitive proof objects as  terms, which has been built into the theorem prover Isabelle recently, we propose a generic framework for program extraction. We show how this framework can be used to extract functional programs from proofs conducted in a constructive fragment of the object logic Isabelle/HOL. A characteristic feature of our implementation of program extraction is that it produces both a program and a correctness proof. Since the extracted program is available as a function within the logic, its correctness proof can be checked automatically inside Isabelle.