Results 1  10
of
14
Complete sequent calculi for induction and infinite descent
 Proceedings of LICS22
, 2007
"... This paper compares two different styles of reasoning with inductively defined predicates, each style being encapsulated by a corresponding sequent calculus proof system. The first system supports traditional proof by induction, with induction rules formulated as sequent rules for introducing induct ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper compares two different styles of reasoning with inductively defined predicates, each style being encapsulated by a corresponding sequent calculus proof system. The first system supports traditional proof by induction, with induction rules formulated as sequent rules for introducing inductively defined predicates on the left of sequents. We show this system to be cutfree complete with respect to a natural class of Henkin models; the eliminability of cut follows as a corollary. The second system uses infinite (nonwellfounded) proofs to represent arguments by infinite descent. In this system, the left rules for inductively defined predicates are simple casesplit rules, and an infinitary, global condition on proof trees is required to ensure soundness. We show this system to be cutfree complete with respect to standard models, and again infer the eliminability of cut. The second infinitary system is unsuitable for formal reasoning. However, it has a natural restriction to proofs given by regular trees, i.e. to those proofs representable by finite graphs. This restricted “cyclic ” system subsumes the first system for proof by induction. We conjecture that the two systems are in fact equivalent, i.e., that proof by induction is equivalent to regular proof by infinite descent.
Mixing finite success and finite failure in an automated prover
 In Proceedings of ESHOL’05: Empirically Successful Automated Reasoning in HigherOrder Logics, pages 79 – 98
, 2005
"... Abstract. The operational semantics and typing judgements of modern programming and specification languages are often defined using relations and proof systems. In simple settings, logic programming languages can be used to provide rather direct and natural interpreters for such operational semantic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The operational semantics and typing judgements of modern programming and specification languages are often defined using relations and proof systems. In simple settings, logic programming languages can be used to provide rather direct and natural interpreters for such operational semantics. More complex features of specifications such as names and their bindings, proof rules with negative premises, and the exhaustive enumeration of state spaces, all pose significant challenges to conventional logic programming systems. In this paper, we describe a simple architecture for the implementation of deduction systems that allows a specification to interleave between finite success and finite failure. The implementation techniques for this prover are largely common ones from higherorder logic programming, i.e., logic variables, (higherorder pattern) unification, backtracking (using streambased computation), and abstract syntax based on simply typed λterms. We present a particular instance of this prover’s architecture and its prototype implementation, Level 0/1, based on the dual interpretation of (finite) success and finite failure in proof search. We show how Level 0/1 provides a highlevel and declarative implementation of model checking and bisimulation checking for the (finite) πcalculus. 1
Cyclic proofs for firstorder logic with inductive definitions
 In TABLEAUX’05, volume 3702 of LNCS
, 2005
"... Abstract. We consider a cyclic approach to inductive reasoning in the setting of firstorder logic with inductive definitions. We present a proof system for this language in which proofs are represented as finite, locally sound derivation trees with a “repeat function ” identifying cyclic proof sect ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We consider a cyclic approach to inductive reasoning in the setting of firstorder logic with inductive definitions. We present a proof system for this language in which proofs are represented as finite, locally sound derivation trees with a “repeat function ” identifying cyclic proof sections. Soundness is guaranteed by a wellfoundedness condition formulated globally in terms of traces over the proof tree, following an idea due to Sprenger and Dam. However, in contrast to their work, our proof system does not require an extension of logical syntax by ordinal variables. A fundamental question in our setting is the strength of the cyclic proof system compared to the more familiar use of a noncyclic proof system using explicit induction rules. We show that the cyclic proof system subsumes the use of explicit induction rules. In addition, we provide machinery for manipulating and analysing the structure of cyclic proofs, based primarily on viewing them as generating regular infinite trees, and also formulate a finitary trace condition sufficient (but not necessary) for soundness, that is computationally and combinatorially simpler than the general trace condition. 1
Cyclic proofs of program termination in separation logic. Forthcoming
"... We propose a novel approach to proving the termination of heapmanipulating programs, which combines separation logic with cyclic proof within a Hoarestyle proof system. Judgements in this system express (guaranteed) termination of the program when started from a given line in the program and in a s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a novel approach to proving the termination of heapmanipulating programs, which combines separation logic with cyclic proof within a Hoarestyle proof system. Judgements in this system express (guaranteed) termination of the program when started from a given line in the program and in a state satisfying a given precondition, which is expressed as a formula of separation logic. The proof rules of our system are of two types: logical rules that operate on preconditions; and symbolic execution rules that capture the effect of executing program commands. Our logical preconditions employ inductively defined predicates to describe heap properties, and proofs in our system are cyclic proofs: cyclic derivations in which some inductive predicate is unfolded infinitely often along every infinite path, thus allowing us to discard all infinite paths in the proof by an infinite descent argument. Moreover, the use of this soundness condition enables us to avoid the explicit construction and use of ranking functions for termination. We also give a completeness result for our system, which is relative in that it relies upon completeness of a proof system for logical implications in separation logic. We give examples illustrating our approach, including one example for which the corresponding ranking function is nonobvious: termination of the classical algorithm for inplace reversal of a (possibly cyclic) linked list.
A Note on Global Induction Mechanisms in a µCalculus with Explicit Approximations
, 1999
"... We investigate a Gentzenstyle proof system for the firstorder µcalculus based on cyclic proofs, produced by unfolding fixed point formulas and detecting repeated proof goals. Our system uses explicit ordinal variables and approximations to support a simple semantic induction discharge conditio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate a Gentzenstyle proof system for the firstorder µcalculus based on cyclic proofs, produced by unfolding fixed point formulas and detecting repeated proof goals. Our system uses explicit ordinal variables and approximations to support a simple semantic induction discharge condition which ensures the wellfoundedness of inductive reasoning. As the main result of this paper we propose a new syntactic discharge condition based on traces and establish its equivalence with the semantical condition. We give an automatatheoretic reformulation of this condition which is more suitable for practical proofs. For a detailed
Customised induction rules for proving correctness of imperative programs
, 2004
"... This thesis is aimed at simplifying the userinteraction in semiinteractive theorem proving for imperative programs. More specifically, we describe the creation of customised induction rules that are tailormade for the specific program to verify and thus make the resulting proof simpler. The conce ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This thesis is aimed at simplifying the userinteraction in semiinteractive theorem proving for imperative programs. More specifically, we describe the creation of customised induction rules that are tailormade for the specific program to verify and thus make the resulting proof simpler. The concern is in user interaction, rather than in proof strength. To achieve this, two different verification techniques are used. In the first approach, we develop an idea where a software testing technique, partition analysis, is used to compute a partition of the domain of the induction variable, based on the branch predicates in the program we wish to prove correct. Based on this partition we derive mechanically a partitioned induction rule, which then inherits the divideandconquer style of partition analysis, and (hopefully) is easier to use than the standard (Peano) induction rule. The second part of the thesis continues with a more thorough development of the method. Here the connection to software testing is completely removed
On the proof theory of modal mucalculus
 Studia Logica
, 2008
"... We study the prooftheoretic relationship between two deductive systems for the modal mucalculus. First we recall an infinitary system which contains an omega rule allowing to derive the truth of a greatest fixed point from the truth of each of its (infinitely many) approximations. Then we recall a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study the prooftheoretic relationship between two deductive systems for the modal mucalculus. First we recall an infinitary system which contains an omega rule allowing to derive the truth of a greatest fixed point from the truth of each of its (infinitely many) approximations. Then we recall a second infinitary calculus which is based on nonwellfounded trees. In this system proofs are finitely branching but may contain infinite branches as long as some greatest fixed point is unfolded infinitely often along every branch. The main contribution of our paper is a translation from proofs in the first system to proofs in the second system. Completeness of the second system then follows from completeness of the first, and a new proof of the finite model property also follows as corollary. 1
Formalised inductive reasoning in the logic of bunched implications
 In SAS14, volume 4634 of LNCS
, 2007
"... Abstract. We present a framework for inductive definitions in the logic of bunched implications, BI, and formulate two sequent calculus proof systems for inductive reasoning in this framework. The first proof system adopts a traditional approach to inductive proof, extending the usual sequent calcul ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We present a framework for inductive definitions in the logic of bunched implications, BI, and formulate two sequent calculus proof systems for inductive reasoning in this framework. The first proof system adopts a traditional approach to inductive proof, extending the usual sequent calculus for predicate BI with explicit induction rules for the inductively defined predicates. The second system allows an alternative mode of reasoning with inductive definitions by cyclic proof. In this system, the induction rules are replaced by simple casesplit rules, and the proof structures are cyclic graphs formed by identifying some sequent occurrences in a derivation tree. Because such proof structures are not sound in general, we demand that cyclic proofs must additionally satisfy a global trace condition that ensures soundness. We illustrate our inductive definition framework and proof systems with simple examples which indicate that, in our setting, cyclic proof may enjoy certain advantages over the traditional induction approach. 1
Canonical completeness of infinitary µ
 Submitted. Address Thomas Studer Institut für Informatik und angewandte Mathematik, Universität Bern Neubrückstrasse 10, CH3012
"... This paper presents a new model construction for a natural cutfree infinitary version K + ω (µ) of the propositional modal µcalculus. Based on that the completeness of K + ω (µ) and the related system Kω(µ) can be established directly – no detour, for example through automata theory, is needed. As ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a new model construction for a natural cutfree infinitary version K + ω (µ) of the propositional modal µcalculus. Based on that the completeness of K + ω (µ) and the related system Kω(µ) can be established directly – no detour, for example through automata theory, is needed. As a side result we also obtain a finite, cutfree sound and complete system for the propositional modal µcalculus. 1
Wellfounded Recursion with Copatterns A Unified Approach to Termination and Productivity
, 2013
"... In this paper, we study strong normalization of a core language based on System Fomega which supports programming with finite and infinite structures. Building on our prior work, finite data such as finite lists and trees are defined via constructors and manipulated via pattern matching, while infi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we study strong normalization of a core language based on System Fomega which supports programming with finite and infinite structures. Building on our prior work, finite data such as finite lists and trees are defined via constructors and manipulated via pattern matching, while infinite data such as streams and infinite trees is defined by observations and synthesized via copattern matching. In this work, we take a typebased approach to strong normalization by tracking size information about finite and infinite data in the type. This guarantees compositionality. More importantly, the duality of pattern and copatterns provide a unifying semantic concept which allows us for the first time to elegantly and uniformly support both wellfounded induction and coinduction by mere rewriting. The strong normalization proof is structured around Girard’s reducibility candidates. As such our system allows for nondeterminism and does not rely on coverage. Since System Fomega is general enough that it can be the target of compilation for the Calculus of Constructions, this work is a significant step towards representing observationcentric infinite data in proof assistants such as Coq and Agda.