Results 1  10
of
28
Isar  a Generic Interpretative Approach to Readable Formal Proof Documents
, 1999
"... We present a generic approach to readable formal proof documents, called Intelligible semiautomated reasoning (Isar). It addresses the major problem of existing interactive theorem proving systems that there is no appropriate notion of proof available that is suitable for human communication, or ..."
Abstract

Cited by 81 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a generic approach to readable formal proof documents, called Intelligible semiautomated reasoning (Isar). It addresses the major problem of existing interactive theorem proving systems that there is no appropriate notion of proof available that is suitable for human communication, or even just maintenance. Isar's main aspect is its formal language for natural deduction proofs, which sets out to bridge the semantic gap between internal notions of proof given by stateoftheart interactive theorem proving systems and an appropriate level of abstraction for userlevel work. The Isar language is both human readable and machinecheckable, by virtue of the Isar/VM interpreter. Compared to existing declarative theorem proving systems, Isar avoids several shortcomings: it is based on a few basic principles only, it is quite independent of the underlying logic, and supports a broad range of automated proof methods. Interactive proof development is supported as well...
Firstorder proof tactics in higherorder logic theorem provers
 Design and Application of Strategies/Tactics in Higher Order Logics, number NASA/CP2003212448 in NASA Technical Reports
, 2003
"... Abstract. In this paper we evaluate the effectiveness of firstorder proof procedures when used as tactics for proving subgoals in a higherorder logic interactive theorem prover. We first motivate why such firstorder proof tactics are useful, and then describe the core integrating technology: an ‘ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 50 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this paper we evaluate the effectiveness of firstorder proof procedures when used as tactics for proving subgoals in a higherorder logic interactive theorem prover. We first motivate why such firstorder proof tactics are useful, and then describe the core integrating technology: an ‘LCFstyle’ logical kernel for clausal firstorder logic. This allows the choice of different logical mappings between higherorder logic and firstorder logic to be used depending on the subgoal, and also enables several different firstorder proof procedures to cooperate on constructing the proof. This work was carried out using the HOL4 theorem prover; we comment on the ease of transferring the technology to other higherorder logic theorem provers. 1
Lightweight relevance filtering for machinegenerated resolution problems
 In ESCoR: Empirically Successful Computerized Reasoning
, 2006
"... Irrelevant clauses in resolution problems increase the search space, making it hard to find proofs in a reasonable time. Simple relevance filtering methods, based on counting function symbols in clauses, improve the success rate for a variety of automatic theorem provers and with various initial set ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Irrelevant clauses in resolution problems increase the search space, making it hard to find proofs in a reasonable time. Simple relevance filtering methods, based on counting function symbols in clauses, improve the success rate for a variety of automatic theorem provers and with various initial settings. We have designed these techniques as part of a project to link automatic theorem provers to the interactive theorem prover Isabelle. They should be applicable to other situations where the resolution problems are produced mechanically and where completeness is less important than achieving a high success rate with limited processor time. 1
Automation for interactive proof: First prototype
 Information and Computation
"... Interactive theorem provers require too much effort from their users. We have been developing a system in which Isabelle users obtain automatic support from automatic theorem provers (ATPs) such as Vampire and SPASS. An ATP is invoked at suitable points in the interactive session, and any proof foun ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Interactive theorem provers require too much effort from their users. We have been developing a system in which Isabelle users obtain automatic support from automatic theorem provers (ATPs) such as Vampire and SPASS. An ATP is invoked at suitable points in the interactive session, and any proof found is given to the user in a window displaying an Isar proof script. There are numerous differences between Isabelle (polymorphic higherorder logic with type classes, natural deduction rule format) and classical ATPs (firstorder, untyped, clause form). Many of these differences have been bridged, and a working prototype that uses background processes already provides much of the desired functionality. 1
IsaPlanner: A prototype proof planner in Isabelle
 In Proceedings of CADE’03, LNCS
, 2003
"... Abstract. IsaPlanner is a generic framework for proof planning in the interactive theorem prover Isabelle. It facilitates the encoding of reasoning techniques, which can be used to conjecture and prove theorems automatically. This paper introduces our approach to proof planning, gives and overview o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. IsaPlanner is a generic framework for proof planning in the interactive theorem prover Isabelle. It facilitates the encoding of reasoning techniques, which can be used to conjecture and prove theorems automatically. This paper introduces our approach to proof planning, gives and overview of IsaPlanner, and presents one simple yet effective reasoning technique. 1
Experiments on supporting interactive proof using resolution
 In Basin and Rusinowitch [4
"... Abstract. Interactive theorem provers can model complex systems, but require much effort to prove theorems. Resolution theorem provers are automatic and powerful, but they are designed to be used for very different applications. This paper reports a series of experiments designed to determine whethe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Interactive theorem provers can model complex systems, but require much effort to prove theorems. Resolution theorem provers are automatic and powerful, but they are designed to be used for very different applications. This paper reports a series of experiments designed to determine whether resolution can support interactive proof as it is currently done. In particular, we present a sound and practical encoding in firstorder logic of Isabelle’s type classes. 1
Mechanizing UNITY in Isabelle
 ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
"... UNITY is an abstract formalism for proving properties of concurrent systems, which typically are expressed using guarded assignments [Chandy and Misra 1988]. UNITY has been mechanized in higherorder logic using Isabelle, a proof assistant. Safety and progress primitives, their weak forms (for the s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
UNITY is an abstract formalism for proving properties of concurrent systems, which typically are expressed using guarded assignments [Chandy and Misra 1988]. UNITY has been mechanized in higherorder logic using Isabelle, a proof assistant. Safety and progress primitives, their weak forms (for the substitution axiom) and the program composition operator (union) have been formalized. To give a feel for the concrete syntax, the paper presents a few extracts from the Isabelle definitions and proofs. It discusses a small example, twoprocess mutual exclusion. A mechanical theory of unions of programs supports a degree of compositional reasoning. Original work on extending program states is presented and then illustrated through a simple example involving an array of processes.
Taclets: A New Paradigm for Constructing Interactive Theorem Provers
 CIENCIAS EXACTAS, FÍSICAS Y NATURALES, SERIE A: MATEMÁTICAS, 98(1), 2004. SPECIAL ISSUE ON SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION IN LOGIC AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 2004
"... Frameworks for interactive theorem proving give the user explicit control over the construction of proofs based on meta languages that contain dedicated control structures for describing proof construction. Such languages are not easy to master and thus contribute to the already long list of skill ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Frameworks for interactive theorem proving give the user explicit control over the construction of proofs based on meta languages that contain dedicated control structures for describing proof construction. Such languages are not easy to master and thus contribute to the already long list of skills required by prospective users of interactive theorem provers. Most users, however, only need a convenient formalism that allows to introduce new rules with minimal overhead. On the the other hand, rules of calculi have not only purely logical content, but contain restrictions on the expected context of rule applications and heuristic information. We suggest a new and minimalist concept for implementing interactive theorem provers called taclet. Their usage can be mastered in a matter of hours, and they are efficiently compiled into the GUI of a prover. We implemented the KeY system, an interactive theorem prover for the full JAVA CARD language based on taclets.
External Rewriting for Skeptical Proof Assistants
, 2002
"... This paper presents the design, the implementation and experiments of the integration of syntactic, conditional possibly associativecommutative term rewriting into proof assistants based on constructive type theory. Our approach is called external since it consists in performing term rewriting in a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper presents the design, the implementation and experiments of the integration of syntactic, conditional possibly associativecommutative term rewriting into proof assistants based on constructive type theory. Our approach is called external since it consists in performing term rewriting in a speci c and ecient environment and to check the computations later in a proof assistant.
Isabelle/Isar  a generic framework for humanreadable proof documents
 UNIVERSITY OF BIA̷LYSTOK
, 2007
"... ..."