20,239 research outputs found

    Doing Algebra in Simple Type Theory

    Get PDF
    To fully utilize the power of higher-order logic in interactive theorem proving, it is desirable to be able to develop abstract areas of Mathematics such as algebra and topology in an automated setting. Theorems provers capable of higher order reasoning have generally had some form of type theory as theory object language. But mathematicians have tended to use the language of set theory to give definitions and prove theorems in algebra and topology. In this paper,we give an incremental description of how to express various basic algebraic concepts in terms of simple type theory. We present a method for representing algebras, subalgebras, quotient algebras, homorphisms and isomorphisms simple type theory, using group theory as an example in each case. Following this we discuss how to automatically apply such an abstract theory to concrete examples. Finally, we conclude with some observations about a potential inconvenience associated with this method of representation, and discuss a difficulty inherent in any attempt to remove this inconvenience

    A Vernacular for Coherent Logic

    Full text link
    We propose a simple, yet expressive proof representation from which proofs for different proof assistants can easily be generated. The representation uses only a few inference rules and is based on a frag- ment of first-order logic called coherent logic. Coherent logic has been recognized by a number of researchers as a suitable logic for many ev- eryday mathematical developments. The proposed proof representation is accompanied by a corresponding XML format and by a suite of XSL transformations for generating formal proofs for Isabelle/Isar and Coq, as well as proofs expressed in a natural language form (formatted in LATEX or in HTML). Also, our automated theorem prover for coherent logic exports proofs in the proposed XML format. All tools are publicly available, along with a set of sample theorems.Comment: CICM 2014 - Conferences on Intelligent Computer Mathematics (2014

    Premise Selection and External Provers for HOL4

    Full text link
    Learning-assisted automated reasoning has recently gained popularity among the users of Isabelle/HOL, HOL Light, and Mizar. In this paper, we present an add-on to the HOL4 proof assistant and an adaptation of the HOLyHammer system that provides machine learning-based premise selection and automated reasoning also for HOL4. We efficiently record the HOL4 dependencies and extract features from the theorem statements, which form a basis for premise selection. HOLyHammer transforms the HOL4 statements in the various TPTP-ATP proof formats, which are then processed by the ATPs. We discuss the different evaluation settings: ATPs, accessible lemmas, and premise numbers. We measure the performance of HOLyHammer on the HOL4 standard library. The results are combined accordingly and compared with the HOL Light experiments, showing a comparably high quality of predictions. The system directly benefits HOL4 users by automatically finding proofs dependencies that can be reconstructed by Metis

    A Dual-Engine for Early Analysis of Critical Systems

    Get PDF
    This paper presents a framework for modeling, simulating, and checking properties of critical systems based on the Alloy language -- a declarative, first-order, relational logic with a built-in transitive closure operator. The paper introduces a new dual-analysis engine that is capable of providing both counterexamples and proofs. Counterexamples are found fully automatically using an SMT solver, which provides a better support for numerical expressions than the existing Alloy Analyzer. Proofs, however, cannot always be found automatically since the Alloy language is undecidable. Our engine offers an economical approach by first trying to prove properties using a fully-automatic, SMT-based analysis, and switches to an interactive theorem prover only if the first attempt fails. This paper also reports on applying our framework to Microsoft's COM standard and the mark-and-sweep garbage collection algorithm.Comment: Workshop on Dependable Software for Critical Infrastructures (DSCI), Berlin 201

    An Exercise in Invariant-based Programming with Interactive and Automatic Theorem Prover Support

    Full text link
    Invariant-Based Programming (IBP) is a diagram-based correct-by-construction programming methodology in which the program is structured around the invariants, which are additionally formulated before the actual code. Socos is a program construction and verification environment built specifically to support IBP. The front-end to Socos is a graphical diagram editor, allowing the programmer to construct invariant-based programs and check their correctness. The back-end component of Socos, the program checker, computes the verification conditions of the program and tries to prove them automatically. It uses the theorem prover PVS and the SMT solver Yices to discharge as many of the verification conditions as possible without user interaction. In this paper, we first describe the Socos environment from a user and systems level perspective; we then exemplify the IBP workflow by building a verified implementation of heapsort in Socos. The case study highlights the role of both automatic and interactive theorem proving in three sequential stages of the IBP workflow: developing the background theory, formulating the program specification and invariants, and proving the correctness of the final implementation.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

    Hipster: Integrating Theory Exploration in a Proof Assistant

    Full text link
    This paper describes Hipster, a system integrating theory exploration with the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL. Theory exploration is a technique for automatically discovering new interesting lemmas in a given theory development. Hipster can be used in two main modes. The first is exploratory mode, used for automatically generating basic lemmas about a given set of datatypes and functions in a new theory development. The second is proof mode, used in a particular proof attempt, trying to discover the missing lemmas which would allow the current goal to be proved. Hipster's proof mode complements and boosts existing proof automation techniques that rely on automatically selecting existing lemmas, by inventing new lemmas that need induction to be proved. We show example uses of both modes
    • …
    corecore