Rewriting and Well-Definedness within a Proof System

Term rewriting has a significant presence in various areas, not least in automated theorem proving where it is used as a proof technique. Many theorem provers employ specialised proof tactics for rewriting. This results in an interleaving between deduction and computation (i.e., rewriting) steps. If the logic of reasoning supports partial functions, it is necessary that rewriting copes with potentially ill-defined terms. In this paper, we provide a basis for integrating rewriting with a deductive proof system that deals with well-definedness. The definitions and theorems presented in this paper are the theoretical foundations for an extensible rewriting-based prover that has been implemented for the set theoretical formalism Event-B.Comment: In Proceedings PAR 2010, arXiv:1012.455

Answer Set Planning Under Action Costs

Recently, planning based on answer set programming has been proposed as an approach towards realizing declarative planning systems. In this paper, we present the language Kc, which extends the declarative planning language K by action costs. Kc provides the notion of admissible and optimal plans, which are plans whose overall action costs are within a given limit resp. minimum over all plans (i.e., cheapest plans). As we demonstrate, this novel language allows for expressing some nontrivial planning tasks in a declarative way. Furthermore, it can be utilized for representing planning problems under other optimality criteria, such as computing ``shortest'' plans (with the least number of steps), and refinement combinations of cheapest and fastest plans. We study complexity aspects of the language Kc and provide a transformation to logic programs, such that planning problems are solved via answer set programming. Furthermore, we report experimental results on selected problems. Our experience is encouraging that answer set planning may be a valuable approach to expressive planning systems in which intricate planning problems can be naturally specified and solved

Matching Logic

This paper presents matching logic, a first-order logic (FOL) variant for specifying and reasoning about structure by means of patterns and pattern matching. Its sentences, the patterns, are constructed using variables, symbols, connectives and quantifiers, but no difference is made between function and predicate symbols. In models, a pattern evaluates into a power-set domain (the set of values that match it), in contrast to FOL where functions and predicates map into a regular domain. Matching logic uniformly generalizes several logical frameworks important for program analysis, such as: propositional logic, algebraic specification, FOL with equality, modal logic, and separation logic. Patterns can specify separation requirements at any level in any program configuration, not only in the heaps or stores, without any special logical constructs for that: the very nature of pattern matching is that if two structures are matched as part of a pattern, then they can only be spatially separated. Like FOL, matching logic can also be translated into pure predicate logic with equality, at the same time admitting its own sound and complete proof system. A practical aspect of matching logic is that FOL reasoning with equality remains sound, so off-the-shelf provers and SMT solvers can be used for matching logic reasoning. Matching logic is particularly well-suited for reasoning about programs in programming languages that have an operational semantics, but it is not limited to this

Explaining Gabriel-Zisman localization to the computer

This explains a computer formulation of Gabriel-Zisman localization of categories in the proof assistant Coq. It includes both the general localization construction with the proof of GZ's Lemma 1.2, as well as the construction using calculus of fractions. The proof files are bundled with the other preprint "Files for GZ localization" posted simultaneously

On the mechanisation of the logic of partial functions

PhD ThesisIt is well known that partial functions arise frequently in formal reasoning about programs. A partial function may not yield a value for every member of its domain. Terms that apply partial functions thus may not denote, and coping with such terms is problematic in two-valued classical logic. A question is raised: how can reasoning about logical formulae that can contain references to terms that may fail to denote (partial terms) be conducted formally? Over the years a number of approaches to coping with partial terms have been documented. Some of these approaches attempt to stay within the realm of two-valued classical logic, while others are based on non-classical logics. However, as yet there is no consensus on which approach is the best one to use. A comparison of numerous approaches to coping with partial terms is presented based upon formal semantic definitions. One approach to coping with partial terms that has received attention over the years is the Logic of Partial Functions (LPF), which is the logic underlying the Vienna Development Method. LPF is a non-classical three-valued logic designed to cope with partial terms, where both terms and propositions may fail to denote. As opposed to using concrete undfined values, undefinedness is treated as a \gap", that is, the absence of a defined value. LPF is based upon Strong Kleene logic, where the interpretations of the logical operators are extended to cope with truth value \gaps". Over the years a large body of research and engineering has gone into the development of proof based tool support for two-valued classical logic. This has created a major obstacle that affects the adoption of LPF, since such proof support cannot be carried over directly to LPF. Presently, there is a lack of direct proof support for LPF. An aim of this work is to investigate the applicability of mechanised (automated) proof support for reasoning about logical formulae that can contain references to partial terms in LPF. The focus of the investigation is on the basic but fundamental two-valued classical logic proof procedure: resolution and the associated technique proof by contradiction. Advanced proof techniques are built on the foundation that is provided by these basic fundamental proof techniques. Looking at the impact of these basic fundamental proof techniques in LPF is thus the essential and obvious starting point for investigating proof support for LPF. The work highlights the issues that arise when applying these basic techniques in LPF, and investigates the extent of the modifications needed to carry them over to LPF. This work provides the essential foundation on which to facilitate research into the modification of advanced proof techniques for LPF.EPSR

On the concept of (homo)morphism : a key notion in the learning of abstract algebra

This article is dedicated to the investigation of difficulties involved in the understanding of the homomorphism concept. It doesn't restrict to group-theory but on the contrary raises the issue of developing teaching strategies aiming at gaining access to structuralist thinking. Emphasis is put on epistemological analysis and its interaction with didactics in an attempt to make Abstract Algebra more accessible

Data-Oblivious Stream Productivity

We are concerned with demonstrating productivity of specifications of infinite streams of data, based on orthogonal rewrite rules. In general, this property is undecidable, but for restricted formats computable sufficient conditions can be obtained. The usual analysis disregards the identity of data, thus leading to approaches that we call data-oblivious. We present a method that is provably optimal among all such data-oblivious approaches. This means that in order to improve on the algorithm in this paper one has to proceed in a data-aware fashion