Results 1  10
of
15
The Nuprl Open Logical Environment
, 2000
"... The Nuprl system is a framework for reasoning about mathematics and programming. Over the years its design has been substantially improved to meet the demands of largescale applications. Nuprl LPE, the newest release, features an open, distributed architecture centered around a flexible knowled ..."
Abstract

Cited by 48 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Nuprl system is a framework for reasoning about mathematics and programming. Over the years its design has been substantially improved to meet the demands of largescale applications. Nuprl LPE, the newest release, features an open, distributed architecture centered around a flexible knowledge base and supports the cooperation of independent formal tools. This paper gives a brief overview of the system and the objectives that are addressed by its new architecture.
AgentOriented Integration of Distributed Mathematical Services
 Journal of Universal Computer Science
, 1999
"... Realworld applications of automated theorem proving require modern software environments that enable modularisation, networked interoperability, robustness, and scalability. These requirements are met by the AgentOriented Programming paradigm of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. We argue that ..."
Abstract

Cited by 20 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Realworld applications of automated theorem proving require modern software environments that enable modularisation, networked interoperability, robustness, and scalability. These requirements are met by the AgentOriented Programming paradigm of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. We argue that a reasonable framework for automated theorem proving in the large regards typical mathematical services as autonomous agents that provide internal functionality to the outside and that, in turn, are able to access a variety of existing external services. This article describes...
An integration of HOL and ACL2
 FMCAD '06: Proceedings of Formal Methods in ComputerAided Design
, 2006
"... A link between the ACL2 and HOL4 proof assistants is described. This allows each system to be deployed smoothly within a single formal development. Several applications are being considered: using ACL2’s execution environment for simulating HOL models; using ACL2’s proof automation to discharge HOL ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A link between the ACL2 and HOL4 proof assistants is described. This allows each system to be deployed smoothly within a single formal development. Several applications are being considered: using ACL2’s execution environment for simulating HOL models; using ACL2’s proof automation to discharge HOL proof obligations; and using HOL to specify and verify properties of ACL2 functions that cannot easily be stated in the rstorder ACL2 logic. Care has been taken to ensure sound translations between the logics supported by HOL and ACL2. The initial ACL2 theory has been dened inside HOL, so that it is possible to prove mechanically that rstorder ACL2 functions on Sexpressions correspond to higherorder functions operating on a variety of types. The translation between the two systems operates at the level of Sexpressions and is intended to handle large hardware and software models. 1.
A Prototype Proof Translator from HOL to Coq
 In 13th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs’00), volume 1869 of LNCS
, 2000
"... ..."
Bridging theorem proving and mathematical knowledge retrieval
 In Festschrift in Honour of Jörg Siekmann, LNAI
, 2004
"... Abstract. Accessing knowledge of a single knowledge source with different client applications often requires the help of mediator systems as middleware components. In the domain of theorem proving large efforts have been made to formalize knowledge for mathematics and verification issues, and to str ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Accessing knowledge of a single knowledge source with different client applications often requires the help of mediator systems as middleware components. In the domain of theorem proving large efforts have been made to formalize knowledge for mathematics and verification issues, and to structure it in databases. But these databases are either specialized for a single client, or if the knowledge is stored in a general database, the services this database can provide are usually limited and hard to adjust for a particular theorem prover. Only recently there have been initiatives to flexibly connect existing theorem proving systems into networked environments that contain large knowledge bases. An intermediate layer containing both, search and proving functionality can be used to mediate between the two. In this paper we motivate the need and discuss the requirements for mediators between mathematical knowledge bases and theorem proving systems. We also present an attempt at a concurrent mediator between a knowledge base and a proof planning system. 1
Importing Isabelle Formal Mathematics into NuPRL
, 1999
"... Isabelle and NuPRL are two theorem proving environments that are written in different dialects of ML using different formula syntaxes and different logical foundations. In spite of this, they have similar sets of basic theories, representing the same mathematical concepts. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Isabelle and NuPRL are two theorem proving environments that are written in different dialects of ML using different formula syntaxes and different logical foundations. In spite of this, they have similar sets of basic theories, representing the same mathematical concepts.
Integrating TPS and ΩMEGA
 JOURNAL OF UNIVERSAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 1999
"... This paper reports on the integration of the higherorder theorem proving environment Tps [Andrews et al., 1996] into the mathematical assistant Ωmega [Benzmuller et al., 1997]. Tps can be called from mega either as a black box or as an interactive system. In black box mode, the user has control ov ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper reports on the integration of the higherorder theorem proving environment Tps [Andrews et al., 1996] into the mathematical assistant Ωmega [Benzmuller et al., 1997]. Tps can be called from mega either as a black box or as an interactive system. In black box mode, the user has control over the parameters which control proof search in Tps; in interactive mode, all features of the Tpssystem are available to the user. If the subproblem which is passed to Tps contains concepts defined in Ωmega's database of mathematical theories, these definitions are not instantiated but are also passed to Tps. Using a special theory which contains proof tactics that model the NDcalculus variant of Tps within mega, any complete or partial proof generated in Tps can be translated one to one into an mega proof plan. Proof transformation is realised by proof plan expansion in Ωmega's 3dimensional proof data structure, and remains transparent to the user.
A Classical SetTheoretic Model of Polymorphic Extensional Type Theory
, 1997
"... . We give a new semantic foundation for type theories in the lineage of MartinLof's "polymorphic extensional" type theory, and use it to give a model of the constructive type theory of the interactive theorem proving system Nuprl. These type theories are based on an operational seman ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
. We give a new semantic foundation for type theories in the lineage of MartinLof's "polymorphic extensional" type theory, and use it to give a model of the constructive type theory of the interactive theorem proving system Nuprl. These type theories are based on an operational semantics of an untyped programming language. We show how to integrate classical settheoretic objects, such as functionsasgraphs and equivalence classes, into this operational framework. The new semantics is dramatically simpler than the previous ones, and enables direct reasoning about classical mathematics. A practical consequence is that it justifies a useful embedding of the logic of the HOL theorem prover that gives Nuprl effective access to most of the large body of formalized mathematics that the HOL community has amassed over the years. 1 Introduction The socalled "polymorphic extensional" type theory of MartinLof (MartinLof, 1982) has two features that set it apart from other constructive type t...
System Description: An Interface between CLaM and HOL
 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE15), number 1421 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
, 1998
"... . The CLaM proof planner has been interfaced to the HOL interactive theorem prover to provide the power of proof planning to people using HOL for formal verification, etc. The interface sends HOL goals to CLaM for planning and translates plans back into HOL tactics that solve the initial goals. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
. The CLaM proof planner has been interfaced to the HOL interactive theorem prover to provide the power of proof planning to people using HOL for formal verification, etc. The interface sends HOL goals to CLaM for planning and translates plans back into HOL tactics that solve the initial goals. The project homepage can be found at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/HVG/Clam.HOL/intro.html. 1 Introduction CLaM [2] is a proof planning system for Oyster, a tacticbased implementation of the constructive type theory of MartinLof. CLaM works by using formalized pre and postconditions of Oyster tactics as the basis of plan search. These specifications of tactics are called methods. When a plan for a goal is found, the expectation is that the resulting tactic will solve the goal. Experience shows that the search space for plans is often tractable: CLaM has been able to automatically plan many proofs. A particular emphasis of research with CLaM has been the automation of inductive proo...
Changing Data Structures in Type Theory: a study of natural numbers
 Types for Proofs and Programs, Intl. Workshop (TYPES 2000), LNCS 2277
, 2000
"... In typetheory based proof systems that provide inductive structures, computation tools are automatically associated to inductive de nitions. Choosing a particular representation for a given concept has a strong inuence on proof structure. We propose a method to make the change from one represe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In typetheory based proof systems that provide inductive structures, computation tools are automatically associated to inductive de nitions. Choosing a particular representation for a given concept has a strong inuence on proof structure. We propose a method to make the change from one representation to another easier, by systematically translating proofs from one context to another. We show how this method works by using it on natural numbers, for which a unary representation (based on Peano axioms) and a binary representation are available. This method leads to an automatic translation tool that we have implemented in Coq and successfully applied to several arithmetical theorems.