Results 1 
8 of
8
Fast Reflexive Arithmetic Tactics the linear case and beyond
 in "Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES’06)", Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2006
"... Abstract. When goals fall in decidable logic fragments, users of proofassistants expect automation. However, despite the availability of decision procedures, automation does not come for free. The reason is that decision procedures do not generate proof terms. In this paper, we show how to design ef ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. When goals fall in decidable logic fragments, users of proofassistants expect automation. However, despite the availability of decision procedures, automation does not come for free. The reason is that decision procedures do not generate proof terms. In this paper, we show how to design efficient and lightweight reflexive tactics for a hierarchy of quantifierfree fragments of integer arithmetics. The tactics can cope with a wide class of linear and nonlinear goals. For each logic fragment, offtheshelf algorithms generate certificates of infeasibility that are then validated by straightforward reflexive checkers proved correct inside the proofassistant. This approach has been prototyped using the Coq proofassistant. Preliminary experiments are promising as the tactics run fast and produce small proof terms. 1
Automating access control logics in simple type theory with LEOII
 FB Informatik, U. des Saarlandes
, 2008
"... Abstract Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory and we have demonstrate ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory and we have demonstrated that the higherorder theorem prover LEOII can automate reasoning in and about them. In this paper we combine these results and describe a sound (and complete) embedding of different access control logics in simple type theory. Employing this framework we show that the off the shelf theorem prover LEOII can be applied to automate reasoning in and about prominent access control logics. 1
Multimodal and Intuitionistic Logics in Simple Type Theory
"... We study straightforward embeddings of propositional normal multimodal logic and propositional intuitionistic logic in simple type theory. The correctness of these embeddings is easily shown. We give examples to demonstrate that these embeddings provide an effective framework for computational inve ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study straightforward embeddings of propositional normal multimodal logic and propositional intuitionistic logic in simple type theory. The correctness of these embeddings is easily shown. We give examples to demonstrate that these embeddings provide an effective framework for computational investigations of various nonclassical logics. We report some experiments using the higherorder automated theorem prover LEOII.
Proof synthesis and reflection for linear arithmetic. Submitted
, 2006
"... This article presents detailed implementations of quantifier elimination for both integer and real linear arithmetic for theorem provers. The underlying algorithms are those by Cooper (for Z) and by Ferrante and Rackoff (for R). Both algorithms are realized in two entirely different ways: once in ta ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This article presents detailed implementations of quantifier elimination for both integer and real linear arithmetic for theorem provers. The underlying algorithms are those by Cooper (for Z) and by Ferrante and Rackoff (for R). Both algorithms are realized in two entirely different ways: once in tactic style, i.e. by a proofproducing functional program, and once by reflection, i.e. by computations inside the logic rather than in the metalanguage. Both formalizations are highly generic because they make only minimal assumptions w.r.t. the underlying logical system and theorem prover. An implementation in Isabelle/HOL shows that the reflective approach is between one and two orders of magnitude faster. 1
Context aware calculation and deduction  Ring equalities via Gröbner Bases in Isabelle
 TOWARDS MECHANIZED MATHEMATICAL ASSISTANTS (CALCULEMUS AND MKM 2007), LNAI
, 2007
"... We address some aspects of a proposed system architecture for mathematical assistants, integrating calculations and deductions by common infrastructure within the Isabelle theorem proving environment. Here calculations may refer to arbitrary extralogical mechanisms, operating on the syntactic struc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We address some aspects of a proposed system architecture for mathematical assistants, integrating calculations and deductions by common infrastructure within the Isabelle theorem proving environment. Here calculations may refer to arbitrary extralogical mechanisms, operating on the syntactic structure of logical statements. Deductions are devoid of any computational content, but driven by procedures external to the logic, following to the traditional “LCF system approach”. The latter is extended towards explicit dependency on abstract theory contexts, with separate mechanisms to interpret both logical and extralogical content uniformly. Thus we are able to implement proof methods that operate on abstract theories and a range of particular theory interpretations. Our approach is demonstrated in Isabelle/HOL by a proofprocedure for generic ring equalities via Gröbner Bases.
AGS 2004 This SEKI Report was internally reviewed by:
, 901
"... Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory (which is also known as highero ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory (which is also known as higherorder logic) and we have demonstrated that the higherorder theorem prover LEOII can automate reasoning in and about them. In this paper we combine these results and describe a sound and complete embedding of different access control logics in simple type theory. Employing this framework we show that the off the shelf theorem prover LEOII can be applied to automate reasoning in prominent access control logics. 1
UITP 2010 Pollackinconsistency
"... For interactive theorem provers a very desirable property is consistency: it should not be possible to prove false theorems. However, this is not enough: it also should not be possible to think that a theorem that actually is false has been proved. More precisely: the user should be able to know wha ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
For interactive theorem provers a very desirable property is consistency: it should not be possible to prove false theorems. However, this is not enough: it also should not be possible to think that a theorem that actually is false has been proved. More precisely: the user should be able to know what it is that the interactive theorem prover is proving. To make these issues concrete we introduce the notion of Pollackconsistency. This property is related to a system being able to correctly parse formulas that it printed itself. In current systems it happens regularly that this fails. We argue that a good interactive theorem prover should be Pollackconsistent. We show with examples that many interactive theorem provers currently are not Pollackconsistent. Finally we describe a simple approach for making a system Pollackconsistent, which only consists of a small modification to the printing code of the system. The most intelligent creature in the universe is a rock. None would know it because they have lousy I/O. — quote from the Internet
A SYNTHESIS OF THE PROCEDURAL AND DECLARATIVE STYLES OF INTERACTIVE THEOREM PROVING
"... Abstract. We propose a synthesis of the two proof styles of interactive theorem proving: the procedural style (where proofs are scripts of commands, like in Coq) and the declarative style (where proofs are texts in a controlled natural language, like in Isabelle/Isar). Our approach combines the adva ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We propose a synthesis of the two proof styles of interactive theorem proving: the procedural style (where proofs are scripts of commands, like in Coq) and the declarative style (where proofs are texts in a controlled natural language, like in Isabelle/Isar). Our approach combines the advantages of the declarative style – the possibility to write formal proofs like normal mathematical text – and the procedural style – strong automation and help with shaping the proofs, including determining the statements of intermediate steps. Our approach is new, and differs significantly from the ways in which the procedural and declarative proof styles have been combined before in the Isabelle, Ssreflect and Matita systems. Our approach is generic and can be implemented on top of any procedural interactive theorem prover, regardless of its architecture and logical foundations. To show the viability of our proposed approach, we fully implemented it as a proof interface called miz3, on top of the HOL Light interactive theorem prover. The declarative language that this interface uses is a slight variant of the language of the Mizar system, and can be used for any interactive theorem prover regardless of its logical foundations. The miz3 interface allows easy access to the full set of tactics and formal libraries of HOL Light, and as such has ‘industrial strength’. Our approach gives a way to automatically convert any procedural proof to a declarative counterpart, where the converted proof is similar in size to the original. As all declarative systems have essentially the same proof language, this gives a straightforward way to port proofs between interactive theorem provers. 1.