Formalization of the fundamental group in untyped set theory using auto2

We present a new framework for formalizing mathematics in untyped set theory using auto2. Using this framework, we formalize in Isabelle/FOL the entire chain of development from the axioms of set theory to the definition of the fundamental group for an arbitrary topological space. The auto2 prover is used as the sole automation tool, and enables succinct proof scripts throughout the project.Comment: 17 pages, accepted for ITP 201

Verifying Programs with Logic and Extended Proof Rules: Deep Embedding v.s. Shallow Embedding

Many foundational program verification tools have been developed to build machine-checked program correctness proofs, a majority of which are based on Hoare logic. Their program logics, their assertion languages, and their underlying programming languages can be formalized by either a shallow embedding or a deep embedding. Tools like Iris and early versions of Verified Software Toolchain (VST) choose different shallow embeddings to formalize their program logics. But the pros and cons of these different embeddings were not yet well studied. Therefore, we want to study the impact of the program logic's embedding on logic's proof rules in this paper. This paper considers a set of useful extended proof rules, and four different logic embeddings: one deep embedding and three common shallow embeddings. We prove the validity of these extended rules under these embeddings and discuss their main challenges. Furthermore, we propose a method to lift existing shallowly embedded logics to deeply embedded ones to greatly simplify proofs of extended rules in specific proof systems. We evaluate our results on two existing verification tools. We lift the originally shallowly embedded VST to our deeply embedded VST to support extended rules, and we implement Iris-CF and deeply embedded Iris-Imp based on the Iris framework to evaluate our theory in real verification projects

A Tool for Producing Verified, Explainable Proofs

Mathematicians are reluctant to use interactive theorem provers. In this thesis I argue that this is because proof assistants don't emphasise explanations of proofs; and that in order to produce good explanations, the system must create proofs in a manner that mimics how humans would create proofs. My research goals are to determine what constitutes a human-like proof and to represent human-like reasoning within an interactive theorem prover to create formalised, understandable proofs. Another goal is to produce a framework to visualise the goal states of this system. To demonstrate this, I present HumanProof: a piece of software built for the Lean 3 theorem prover. It is used for interactively creating proofs that resemble how human mathematicians reason. The system provides a visual, hierarchical representation of the goal and a system for suggesting available inference rules. The system produces output in the form of both natural language and formal proof terms which are checked by Lean's kernel. This is made possible with the use of a structured goal state system which interfaces with Lean's tactic system which is detailed in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, I present the subtasks automation planning subsystem, which is used to produce equality proofs in a human-like fashion. The basic strategy of the subtasks system is break a given equality problem in to a hierarchy of tasks and then maintain a stack of these tasks in order to determine the order in which to apply equational rewriting moves. This process produces equality chains for simple problems without having to resort to brute force or specialised procedures such as normalisation. This makes proofs more human-like by breaking the problem into a hierarchical set of tasks in the same way that a human would. To produce the interface for this software, I also created the ProofWidgets system for Lean 3. This system is detailed in Chapter 5. The ProofWidgets system uses Lean's metaprogramming framework to allow users to write their own interactive, web-based user interfaces to display within the VSCode editor and in an online web-editor. The entire tactic state is available to the rendering engine, and hence expression structure and types of subexpressions can be explored interactively. The ProofWidgets system also allows the user interface to interactively edit the proof document, enabling a truly interactive modality for creating proofs; human-like or not. In Chapter 6, the system is evaluated by asking real mathematicians about the output of the system, and what it means for a proof to be understandable to them. The user group study asks participants to rank and comment on proofs created by HumanProof alongside natural language and pure Lean proofs. The study finds that participants generally prefer the HumanProof format over the Lean format. The verbal responses collected during the study indicate that providing intuition and signposting are the most important properties of a proof that aid understanding.EPSR