Specifying Theorem Provers in a Higher-Order Logic Programming Language

Since logic programming systems directly implement search and unification and since these operations are essential for the implementation of most theorem provers, logic programming languages should make ideal implementation languages for theorem provers. We shall argue that this is indeed the case if the logic programming language is extended in several ways. We present an extended logic programming language where first-order terms are replaced with simply-typed λ-terms, higher-order unification replaces firstorder unification, and implication and universal quantification are allowed in queries and the bodies of clauses. This language naturally specifies inference rules for various proof systems. The primitive search operations required to search for proofs generally have very simple implementations using the logical connectives of this extended logic programming language. Higher-order unification, which provides sophisticated pattern matching on formulas and proofs, can be used to determine when and at what instance an inference rule can be employed in the search for a proof. Tactics and tacticals, which provide a framework for high-level control over search, can also be directly implemented in this extended language. The theorem provers presented in this paper have been implemented in the higher-order logic programming language λProlog

A Comparative Study of Coq and HOL

This paper illustrates the differences between the style of theory mechanisation of Coq and of HOL. This comparative study is based on the mechanisation of fragments of the theory of computation in these systems. Examples from these implementations are given to support some of the arguments discussed in this paper. The mechanisms for specifying definitions and for theorem proving are discussed separately, building in parallel two pictures of the different approaches of mechanisation given by these systems

Implementing Theorem Provers in Logic Programming

Logic programming languages have many characteristics that indicate that they should serve as good implementation languages for theorem provers. For example, they are based on search and unification which are also fundamental to theorem proving. We show how an extended logic programming language can be used to implement theorem provers and other aspects of proof systems for a variety of logics. In this language first-order terms are replaced with simply-typed λ-terms, and thus unification becomes higher-order unification. Also, implication and universal quantification are allowed in goals. We illustrate that inference rules can be very naturally specified, and that the primitive search operations of this language correspond to those needed for searching for proofs. We argue on several levels that this extended logic programming language provides a very suitable environment for implementing tactic style theorem provers. Such theorem provers provide extensive capabilities for integrating techniques for automated theorem proving into an interactive proof environment. We are also concerned with representing proofs as objects. We illustrate how such objects can be constructed and manipulated in the logic programming setting. Finally, we propose extensions to tactic style theorem provers in working toward the goal of developing an interactive theorem proving environment that provides a user with many tools and techniques for building and manipulating proofs, and that integrates sophisticated capabilities for automated proof discovery. Many of the theorem provers we present have been implemented in the higher-order logic programming language λProlog

NATURAL DEDUCTION AS HIGHER-ORDER RESOLUTION

An interactive theorem prover, Isabelle, is under development. In LCF, each inference rule is represented by one function for forwards proof and another (a tactic) for backwards proof. In Isabelle, each inference rule is represented by a Horn clause. Resolution gives both forwards and backwards proof, supporting a large class of logics. Isabelle has been used to prove theorems in Martin-L\"of's Constructive Type Theory. Quantifiers pose several difficulties: substitution, bound variables, Skolemization. Isabelle's representation of logical syntax is the typed lambda-calculus, requiring higher- order unification. It may have potential for logic programming. Depth-first subgoaling along inference rules constitutes a higher-order Prolog

Memoization-Based Proof Search in LF An Experimental Evaluation of a Prototype

AbstractElf is a general meta-language for the specification and implementation of logical systems in the style of the logical framework LF. Proof search in this framework is based on the operational semantics of logic programming. In this paper, we discuss experiments with a prototype for memoization-based proof search for Elf programs. We compare the performance of memoization-based proof search, depth-first search and iterative deepening search using two applications: 1) Bi-directional type-checker with subtyping and intersection types 2) Parsing of formulas into higher-order abstract syntax. These experiments indicate that memoization-based proof search is a practical and overall more efficient alternative to depth-first and iterative deepening search

A User-Level Introduction to the Nuprl Proof Development System

This document is intended to introduce the key elements of the Nuprl Proof Development System (Nuprl, for short) from the perspective of a Nuprl user, as opposed to the perspective of someone intimately involved in developing or extending Nuprl. As such, it may be more appropriate than other Kuprl-related documents for readers who are primarily concerned with uses of Nuprl and not fine details of Nuprl\u27s mathematical foundation. It introduces and illustrates key Kuprl concepts -such as types, terms, displayforms, and tactics - in the framework of a model of calculational predicate logic inference