Results 11  20
of
26
Encoding the HOL Light logic in Coq
"... Abstract. We show how to encode the HOL Light logic in Coq. This makes an automatic translation of HOL proofs to Coq possible. The translated HOL proofs refer to translated HOL data types but those data types can be related to the standard Coq data types, making the HOL results useful for Coq. The t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We show how to encode the HOL Light logic in Coq. This makes an automatic translation of HOL proofs to Coq possible. The translated HOL proofs refer to translated HOL data types but those data types can be related to the standard Coq data types, making the HOL results useful for Coq. The translated proofs have a size linear in the time HOL takes to process the original proofs. However the constant of linearity is large. The approach described in this paper is similar to the method of Pavel Naumov, MarkOliver Stehr and José Mesequer for translating HOL98 proofs to Nuprl [10].
Communicating and trusting proofs: The case for foundational proof certificates
"... It is well recognized that proofs serve two different goals. On one hand, they can serve the didactic purpose of explaining why a theorem holds: that is, a proof has a message that is meant to describe the “why ” behind a theorem. On the other hand, proofs can serve as certificates of validity. In t ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
It is well recognized that proofs serve two different goals. On one hand, they can serve the didactic purpose of explaining why a theorem holds: that is, a proof has a message that is meant to describe the “why ” behind a theorem. On the other hand, proofs can serve as certificates of validity. In this case, once a certificate
Author manuscript, published in "39th ACM SIGPLANSIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages POPL'12 (2012)" SelfCertification Bootstrapping Certified Typecheckers in F ⋆ with Coq
, 2011
"... Wellestablished dependentlytyped languages like Agda and Coq provide reliable ways to build and check formal proofs. Several other dependentlytyped languages such as Aura, ATS, Cayenne, Epigram, F ⋆ , F7, Fine, Guru, PCML5, and Ur also explore reliable ways to develop and verify programs. All the ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Wellestablished dependentlytyped languages like Agda and Coq provide reliable ways to build and check formal proofs. Several other dependentlytyped languages such as Aura, ATS, Cayenne, Epigram, F ⋆ , F7, Fine, Guru, PCML5, and Ur also explore reliable ways to develop and verify programs. All these languages shine in their own regard, but their implementations do not themselves enjoy the degree of safety provided by machinechecked verification. We propose a general technique called selfcertification that allows a typechecker for a suitably expressive language to be certified for correctness. We have implemented this technique for F ⋆ , a dependently typed language on the.NET platform. Selfcertification involves implementing a typechecker for F ⋆ in F ⋆ , while using all the conveniences F ⋆ provides for the compilerwriter (e.g., partiality, effects, implicit conversions, proof automation, libraries). This
Checking Nuprl Proofs in ACL2: A Progress Report
"... Abstract. Stipulations on the correctness of proofs produced in a formal system include that the axioms and proof rules are the intended ones and that the proof has been properly constructed (i.e. it is a correct instantiation of the axioms and proof rules.) In software implementations of formal sys ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Stipulations on the correctness of proofs produced in a formal system include that the axioms and proof rules are the intended ones and that the proof has been properly constructed (i.e. it is a correct instantiation of the axioms and proof rules.) In software implementations of formal systems, correctness additionally depends both on the correctness of the program implementing the system and on the hardware it is executed on. Once we implement a system in software and execute it on a computer, we have moved from the abstract world of mathematics into the physical world; absolute correctness can never be achieved here. We can only strive to increase our confidence that the system is producing correct results. In the process of creating proofs, foundational systems like Nuprl construct formal proof objects. These proof objects can be independently checked to verify they are correct instantiations of the axioms and proof rules thereby increasing confidence that the putative proof object faithfully represents a proof in the formal system. Note that this kind of proof checking does not address issues related to the models of the proof system, it simply provides more evidence that a proof has been correctly constructed. The Nuprl implementation consists of more than 100K lines of LISP and tactic code implemented in ML. Although parts of the system consist of legacy codes going as far back as the late 1970’s (Edinburgh LCF), and even though the Nuprl system has been extensively used since 1986 in formalizing a significant body of mathematics, the chances that the implementation is correct are slim. Verifying the system itself is infeasible, instead we propose to increase confidence in Nuprl proofs by independently checking them in ACL2. In this paper we describe: (i.) the ACL2 formalization of Nuprl terms, proof rules, and proofs, (ii.) first steps in the implementation of a proof checker, and (iii.) discuss issues related to the future of the project. 1
Linear Type Checking
"... but ag it to indicate that it may not be exact, but that some of these linear hypotheses may be absorbed if necessary. In other words, in the judgment any of the remaining hypotheses in O need not be consumed in the other branches of the typing derivation. On the other hand, the judgment ; I n O ` ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
but ag it to indicate that it may not be exact, but that some of these linear hypotheses may be absorbed if necessary. In other words, in the judgment any of the remaining hypotheses in O need not be consumed in the other branches of the typing derivation. On the other hand, the judgment ; I n O ` 0 M : A indicates the M uses exactly the variables in I O . When we think of the judgment ; I n O ` i M : A as describing an algorithm, we think of , I and M as given, and O and the slack indicator i as part of the result of the computation. The type A may or may not be givenin one case it is synthesized, in the other case checked. This re nes our view as computation being described as the bottomup construction of a derivation to include parts of the judgment in dierent roles (as input, output, or bidirectional components). In logic programming, which is based on the notion of computationasproofsearch, these roles of the syntactic constituents of a judgment are called
A Formalist's Perspective of Mathematics
, 1999
"... According to some mathematicians, the formalist philosophy of mathematics faces the dilemma that a practising mathematician could not possibly hold a formalist conviction, although some of the weaknesses of mathematical foundations almost enforce a formalist position. I am a formalist, and in this p ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
According to some mathematicians, the formalist philosophy of mathematics faces the dilemma that a practising mathematician could not possibly hold a formalist conviction, although some of the weaknesses of mathematical foundations almost enforce a formalist position. I am a formalist, and in this paper I explain how this dilemma fails to materialise.