Uniform Inductive Reasoning in Transitive Closure Logic via Infinite Descent

Transitive closure logic is a known extension of first-order logic obtained by introducing a transitive closure operator. While other extensions of first-order logic with inductive definitions are a priori parametrized by a set of inductive definitions, the addition of the transitive closure operator uniformly captures all finitary inductive definitions. In this paper we present an infinitary proof system for transitive closure logic which is an infinite descent-style counterpart to the existing (explicit induction) proof system for the logic. We show that, as for similar systems for first-order logic with inductive definitions, our infinitary system is complete for the standard semantics and subsumes the explicit system. Moreover, the uniformity of the transitive closure operator allows semantically meaningful complete restrictions to be defined using simple syntactic criteria. Consequently, the restriction to regular infinitary (i.e. cyclic) proofs provides the basis for an effective system for automating inductive reasoning

Infinitary and Cyclic Proof Systems for Transitive Closure Logic

Transitive closure logic is a known extension of first-order logic obtained by introducing a transitive closure operator. While other extensions of first-order logic with inductive definitions are a priori parametrized by a set of inductive definitions, the addition of the transitive closure operator uniformly captures all finitary inductive definitions. In this paper we present an infinitary proof system for transitive closure logic which is an infinite descent-style counterpart to the existing (explicit induction) proof system for the logic. We show that, as for similar systems for first-order logic with inductive definitions, our infinitary system is complete for the standard semantics and subsumes the explicit system. Moreover, the uniformity of the transitive closure operator allows semantically meaningful complete restrictions to be defined using simple syntactic criteria. Consequently, the restriction to regular infinitary (i.e. cyclic) proofs provides the basis for an effective system for automating inductive reasoning

A generic cyclic theorem prover

We describe the design and implementation of an automated theorem prover realising a fully general notion of cyclic proof. Our tool, called CYCLIST, is able to construct proofs obeying a very general cycle scheme in which leaves may be linked to any other matching node in the proof, and to verify the general, global infinitary condition on such proof objects ensuring their soundness. CYCLIST is based on a new, generic theory of cyclic proofs that can be instantiated to a wide variety of logics. We have developed three such concrete instantiations, based on: (a) first-order logic with inductive definitions; (b) entailments of pure separation logic; and (c) Hoare-style termination proofs for pointer programs. Experiments run on these instantiations indicate that CYCLIST offers significant potential as a future platform for inductive theorem proving. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Soundness and completeness proofs by coinductive methods

We show how codatatypes can be employed to produce compact, high-level proofs of key results in logic: the soundness and completeness of proof systems for variations of first-order logic. For the classical completeness result, we first establish an abstract property of possibly infinite derivation trees. The abstract proof can be instantiated for a wide range of Gentzen and tableau systems for various flavors of first-order logic. Soundness becomes interesting as soon as one allows infinite proofs of first-order formulas. This forms the subject of several cyclic proof systems for first-order logic augmented with inductive predicate definitions studied in the literature. All the discussed results are formalized using Isabelle/HOL’s recently introduced support for codatatypes and corecursion. The development illustrates some unique features of Isabelle/HOL’s new coinductive specification language such as nesting through non-free types and mixed recursion–corecursion

Soundness and completeness proofs by coinductive methods

We show how codatatypes can be employed to produce compact, high-level proofs of key results in logic: the soundness and completeness of proof systems for variations of first-order logic. For the classical completeness result, we first establish an abstract property of possibly infinite derivation trees. The abstract proof can be instantiated for a wide range of Gentzen and tableau systems for various flavors of first-order logic. Soundness becomes interesting as soon as one allows infinite proofs of first-order formulas. This forms the subject of several cyclic proof systems for first-order logic augmented with inductive predicate definitions studied in the literature. All the discussed results are formalized using Isabelle/HOL’s recently introduced support for codatatypes and corecursion. The development illustrates some unique features of Isabelle/HOL’s new coinductive specification language such as nesting through non-free types and mixed recursion–corecursion

E-Cyclist: Implementation of an Efficient Validation of FOL ID Cyclic Induction Reasoning (System Description)

Checking the soundness of cyclic induction reasoning for first-order logic with inductive definitions (FOLID) is decidable but the standard checking method is based on an exponential complement operation for Büchi automata. Recently, we introduced a polynomial checking method whose most expensive steps recall the comparisons done with multiset path orderings. We describe the implementation of our method in the Cyclist prover. Referred to as E-Cyclist, it successfully checked all the proofs included in the original distribution of Cyclist. Heuristics have been devised to automatically define from the analysis of the proof derivations the ordering measures that satisfy the ordering constraints. FOLID cyclic proof derivations may also be hard to certify. E-Cyclist witnesses a strong relation between the two cyclic and well-founded induction reasonings. This opens the perspective of using the known certification methods that work for well-founded induction proofs

Classical System of Martin-Lof's Inductive Definitions is not Equivalent to Cyclic Proofs

A cyclic proof system, called CLKID-omega, gives us another way of representing inductive definitions and efficient proof search. The 2005 paper by Brotherston showed that the provability of CLKID-omega includes the provability of LKID, first order classical logic with inductive definitions in Martin-L\"of's style, and conjectured the equivalence. The equivalence has been left an open question since 2011. This paper shows that CLKID-omega and LKID are indeed not equivalent. This paper considers a statement called 2-Hydra in these two systems with the first-order language formed by 0, the successor, the natural number predicate, and a binary predicate symbol used to express 2-Hydra. This paper shows that the 2-Hydra statement is provable in CLKID-omega, but the statement is not provable in LKID, by constructing some Henkin model where the statement is false