41,774 research outputs found
On the formalization of some results of context-free language theory
This work describes a formalization effort, using the Coq proof assistant, of fundamental results related to the classical theory of context-free grammars and languages. These include closure properties (union, concatenation and Kleene star), grammar simplification (elimination of useless symbols, inaccessible symbols, empty rules and unit rules), the existence of a Chomsky Normal Form for context-free grammars and the Pumping Lemma for context-free languages. The result is an important set of libraries covering the main results of context-free language theory, with more than 500 lemmas and theorems fully proved and checked. This is probably the most comprehensive formalization of the classical context-free language theory in the Coq proof assistant done to the present date, and includes the important result that is the formalization of the Pumping Lemma for context-free languages.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Some applications of the formalization of the pumping lemma for context-free languages
Context-free languages are highly important in computer language processing technology as well as in formal language theory. The Pumping Lemma for Context-Free Languages states a property that is valid for all context-free languages, which makes it a tool for showing the existence of non-context-free languages. This paper presents a formalization, extending the previously formalized Lemma, of the fact that several well-known languages are not context-free. Moreover, we build on those results to construct a formal proof of the well-known property that context-free languages are not closed under intersection. All the formalization has been mechanized in the Coq proof assistant.- (undefined
Semantic Criteria of Correct Formalization
This paper compares several models of formalization. It articulates criteria of correct formalization and identifies their problems. All of the discussed criteria are so called “semantic” criteria, which refer to the interpretation of logical formulas. However, as will be shown, different versions of an implicitly applied or explicitly stated criterion of correctness depend on different understandings of “interpretation” in this context
Formalization and Validation of Safety-Critical Requirements
The validation of requirements is a fundamental step in the development
process of safety-critical systems. In safety critical applications such as
aerospace, avionics and railways, the use of formal methods is of paramount
importance both for requirements and for design validation. Nevertheless, while
for the verification of the design, many formal techniques have been conceived
and applied, the research on formal methods for requirements validation is not
yet mature. The main obstacles are that, on the one hand, the correctness of
requirements is not formally defined; on the other hand that the formalization
and the validation of the requirements usually demands a strong involvement of
domain experts. We report on a methodology and a series of techniques that we
developed for the formalization and validation of high-level requirements for
safety-critical applications. The main ingredients are a very expressive formal
language and automatic satisfiability procedures. The language combines
first-order, temporal, and hybrid logic. The satisfiability procedures are
based on model checking and satisfiability modulo theory. We applied this
technology within an industrial project to the validation of railways
requirements
How much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review of conceptual obstacles
Fifty years of effort in artificial intelligence (AI) and the formalization of legal reasoning have produced both successes and failures. Considerable success in organizing and displaying evidence and its interrelationships has been accompanied by failure to achieve the original ambition of AI as applied to law: fully automated legal decision-making. The obstacles to formalizing legal reasoning have proved to be the same ones that make the formalization of commonsense reasoning so difficult, and are most evident where legal reasoning has to meld with the vast web of ordinary human knowledge of the world. Underlying many of the problems is the mismatch between the discreteness of symbol manipulation and the continuous nature of imprecise natural language, of degrees of similarity and analogy, and of probabilities
- …