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

Goal Translation for a Hammer for Coq (Extended Abstract)

Hammers are tools that provide general purpose automation for formal proof assistants. Despite the gaining popularity of the more advanced versions of type theory, there are no hammers for such systems. We present an extension of the various hammer components to type theory: (i) a translation of a significant part of the Coq logic into the format of automated proof systems; (ii) a proof reconstruction mechanism based on a Ben-Yelles-type algorithm combined with limited rewriting, congruence closure and a first-order generalization of the left rules of Dyckhoff's system LJT.Comment: In Proceedings HaTT 2016, arXiv:1606.0542

Mixing HOL and Coq in Dedukti (Extended Abstract)

We use Dedukti as a logical framework for interoperability. We use automated tools to translate different developments made in HOL and in Coq to Dedukti, and we combine them to prove new results. We illustrate our approach with a concrete example where we instantiate a sorting algorithm written in Coq with the natural numbers of HOL.Comment: In Proceedings PxTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0837

CoLoR: a Coq library on well-founded rewrite relations and its application to the automated verification of termination certificates

Termination is an important property of programs; notably required for programs formulated in proof assistants. It is a very active subject of research in the Turing-complete formalism of term rewriting systems, where many methods and tools have been developed over the years to address this problem. Ensuring reliability of those tools is therefore an important issue. In this paper we present a library formalizing important results of the theory of well-founded (rewrite) relations in the proof assistant Coq. We also present its application to the automated verification of termination certificates, as produced by termination tools

The Use of Proof Planning for Cooperative Theorem Proving

AbstractWe describebarnacle: a co-operative interface to theclaminductive theorem proving system. For the foreseeable future, there will be theorems which cannot be proved completely automatically, so the ability to allow human intervention is desirable; for this intervention to be productive the problem of orienting the user in the proof attempt must be overcome. There are many semi-automatic theorem provers: we call our style of theorem provingco-operative, in that the skills of both human and automaton are used each to their best advantage, and used together may find a proof where other methods fail. The co-operative nature of thebarnacleinterface is made possible by the proof planning technique underpinningclam. Our claim is that proof planning makes new kinds of user interaction possible.Proof planning is a technique for guiding the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. Common patterns of reasoning in proofs are identified and represented computationally as proof plans, which can then be used to guide the search for proofs of new conjectures. We have harnessed the explanatory power of proof planning to enable the user to understand where the automatic prover got to and why it is stuck. A user can analyse the failed proof in terms ofclam's specification language, and hence override the prover to force or prevent the application of a tactic, or discover a proof patch. This patch might be to apply further rules or tactics to bridge the gap between the effects of previous tactics and the preconditions needed by a currently inapplicable tactic