Representing Scope in Intuitionistic Deductions

Intuitionistic proofs can be segmented into scopes which describe when assumptions can be used. In standard descriptions of intuitionistic logic, these scopes occupy contiguous regions of proofs. This leads to an explosion in the search space for automated deduction, because of the difficulty of planning to apply a rule inside a particular scoped region of the proof. This paper investigates an alternative representation which assigns scope explicitly to formulas, and which is inspired in part by semantics-based translation methods for modal deduction. This calculus is simple and is justified by direct proof-theoretic arguments that transform proofs in the calculus so that scopes match standard descriptions. A Herbrand theorem, established straightforwardly, lifts this calculus to incorporate unification. The resulting system has no impermutabilities whatsoever—rules of inference may be used equivalently anywhere in the proof. Nevertheless, a natural specification describes how λ-terms are to be extracted from its deductions

Representing scope in intuitionistic deductions

AbstractIntuitionistic proofs can be segmented into scopes which describe when assumptions can be used. In standard descriptions of intuitionistic logic, these scopes occupy contiguous regions of proofs. This leads to an explosion in the search space for automated deduction, because of the difficulty of planning to apply a rule inside a particular scoped region of the proof. This paper investigates an alternative representation which assigns scope explicitly to formulas, and which is inspired in part by semantics-based translation methods for modal deduction. This calculus is simple and is justified by direct proof-theoretic arguments that transform proofs in the calculus so that scopes match standard descriptions. A Herbrand theorem, established straightforwardly, lifts this calculus to incorporate unification. The resulting system has no impermutabilities whatsoever — rules of inference may be used equivalently anywhere in the proof. Nevertheless, a natural specification describes how λ-terms are to be extracted from its deductions

Towards an Intelligent Tutor for Mathematical Proofs

Computer-supported learning is an increasingly important form of study since it allows for independent learning and individualized instruction. In this paper, we discuss a novel approach to developing an intelligent tutoring system for teaching textbook-style mathematical proofs. We characterize the particularities of the domain and discuss common ITS design models. Our approach is motivated by phenomena found in a corpus of tutorial dialogs that were collected in a Wizard-of-Oz experiment. We show how an intelligent tutor for textbook-style mathematical proofs can be built on top of an adapted assertion-level proof assistant by reusing representations and proof search strategies originally developed for automated and interactive theorem proving. The resulting prototype was successfully evaluated on a corpus of tutorial dialogs and yields good results.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Tactics From Proofs

Proof guarantees the correctness of a formal specification with respect to formal requirements, and of an implementation with respect to a specification, and so provides valuable verification methods in high integrity system development. However, proof development by hand tends to be an erudite, error-prone and seemingly interminable task. Tactics are programs that drive theorem-provers, thus automating proof development and alleviating some of the problems mentioned above. The development of tactics for a particular application domain also extends the domain of application of the theorem-prover. A LCF-tactic is safe in that if it fails to be applicable to a particular conjecture, then it will not produce an incorrect proof. The current construction of tactics from proofs does not yield sufficiently robust tactics. Proofs tend to be specific to the details of a specification and so are not reusable in general, e.g. the same proof may not work when the definition of a conjecture is changed. The major challenges in proof development are deciding which proof rule and instantiations to apply in order to prove a conjecture. Discerning patterns in formal interactive proof development facilitates the construction of robust tactics that can withstand definitional changes in conjectures. Having developed an interactive proof for a conjecture, we develop the necessary abstractions of the proof steps used, to construct a tactic th at can be applicable to other conjectures in that domain. By so doing we encode human expertise used in the proof development, and make proofs robust and thus generally reusable. We apply our theory on the proofs of conjectures involving some set theory operators, and on the proof obligations that arise in the formal development of numerical specifications using the retrenchment method under the IEEE-854 floating-point standard in the PVS theorem-prover/proof-checker

Hilbert's epsilon as an Operator of Indefinite Committed Choice

Paul Bernays and David Hilbert carefully avoided overspecification of Hilbert's epsilon-operator and axiomatized only what was relevant for their proof-theoretic investigations. Semantically, this left the epsilon-operator underspecified. In the meanwhile, there have been several suggestions for semantics of the epsilon as a choice operator. After reviewing the literature on semantics of Hilbert's epsilon operator, we propose a new semantics with the following features: We avoid overspecification (such as right-uniqueness), but admit indefinite choice, committed choice, and classical logics. Moreover, our semantics for the epsilon supports proof search optimally and is natural in the sense that it does not only mirror some cases of referential interpretation of indefinite articles in natural language, but may also contribute to philosophy of language. Finally, we ask the question whether our epsilon within our free-variable framework can serve as a paradigm useful in the specification and computation of semantics of discourses in natural language.Comment: ii + 73 pages. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1104.244

A complete transformational toolkit for compilers

In an earlier paper, one of the present authors presented a preliminary account of an equational logic called PIM. PIM is intended to function as a 'transformational toolkit' to be used by compilers and analysis tools for imperative languages, and has been applied to such problems as program slicing, symbolic evaluation, conditional constant propagation, and dependence analysis. PIM consists of the untyped lambda calculus extended with an algebraic rewriting system that characterizes the behavior of lazy stores and generalized conditionals. A major question left open in the earlier paper was whether there existed a complete equational axiomatization of PIM's semantics. In this paper, we answer this question in the affirmative for PIM's core algebraic component, PIMt, under the assumption of certain reasonable restrictions on term formation. We systematically derive the complete PIM logic as the culmination of a sequence of increasingly powerful equational systems starting from a straightforward 'interpreter' for closed PIM terms

Assertion level proof planning with compiled strategies

This book presents new techniques that allow the automatic verification and generation of abstract human-style proofs. The core of this approach builds an efficient calculus that works directly by applying definitions, theorems, and axioms, which reduces the size of the underlying proof object by a factor of ten. The calculus is extended by the deep inference paradigm which allows the application of inference rules at arbitrary depth inside logical expressions and provides new proofs that are exponentially shorter and not available in the sequent calculus without cut. In addition, a strategy language for abstract underspecified declarative proof patterns is developed. Together, the complementary methods provide a framework to automate declarative proofs. The benefits of the techniques are illustrated by practical applications.Die vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich damit, das Formalisieren von Beweisen zu vereinfachen, indem Methoden entwickelt werden, um informale Beweise formal zu verifizieren und erzeugen zu können. Dazu wird ein abstrakter Kalkül entwickelt, der direkt auf der Faktenebene arbeitet, welche von Menschen geführten Beweisen relativ nahe kommt. Anhand einer Fallstudie wird gezeigt, dass die abstrakte Beweisführung auf der Fakteneben vorteilhaft für automatische Suchverfahren ist. Zusätzlich wird eine Strategiesprache entwickelt, die es erlaubt, unterspezifizierte Beweismuster innerhalb des Beweisdokumentes zu spezifizieren und Beweisskizzen automatisch zu verfeinern. Fallstudien zeigen, dass komplexe Beweismuster kompakt in der entwickelten Strategiesprache spezifiziert werden können. Zusammen bilden die einander ergänzenden Methoden den Rahmen zur Automatisierung von deklarativen Beweisen auf der Faktenebene, die bisher überwiegend manuell entwickelt werden mussten