Safety and conservativity of definitions in HOL and Isabelle/HOL

Definitions are traditionally considered to be a safe mechanism for introducing concepts on top of a logic known to be consistent. In contrast to arbitrary axioms, definitions should in principle be treatable as a form of abbreviation, and thus compiled away from the theory without losing provability. In particular, definitions should form a conservative extension of the pure logic. These properties are crucial for modern interactive theorem provers, since they ensure the consistency of the logic, as well as a valid environment for total/certified functional programming. We prove these properties, namely, safety and conservativity, for Higher-Order Logic (HOL), a logic implemented in several mainstream theorem provers and relied upon by thousands of users. Some unique features of HOL, such as the requirement to give non-emptiness proofs when defining new types and the impossibility to unfold type definitions, make the proof of these properties, and also the very formulation of safety, nontrivial. Our study also factors in the essential variation of HOL definitions featured by Isabelle/HOL, a popular member of the HOL-based provers family. The current work improves on recent results which showed a weaker property, consistency of Isabelle/HOL’s definitions

Safety and conservativity of definitions in HOL and Isabelle/HOL

Definitions are traditionally considered to be a safe mechanism for introducing concepts on top of a logic known to be consistent. In contrast to arbitrary axioms, definitions should in principle be treatable as a form of abbreviation, and thus compiled away from the theory without losing provability. In particular, definitions should form a conservative extension of the pure logic. These properties are crucial for modern interactive theorem provers, since they ensure the consistency of the logic, as well as a valid environment for total/certified functional programming. We prove these properties, namely, safety and conservativity, for Higher-Order Logic (HOL), a logic implemented in several mainstream theorem provers and relied upon by thousands of users. Some unique features of HOL, such as the requirement to give non-emptiness proofs when defining new types and the impossibility to unfold type definitions, make the proof of these properties, and also the very formulation of safety, nontrivial. Our study also factors in the essential variation of HOL definitions featured by Isabelle/HOL, a popular member of the HOL-based provers family. The current work improves on recent results which showed a weaker property, consistency of Isabelle/HOL’s definitions

Mechanisation of Model-theoretic Conservative Extension for HOL with Ad-hoc Overloading

Definitions of new symbols merely abbreviate expressions in logical frameworks, and no new facts (regarding previously defined symbols) should hold because of a new definition. In Isabelle/HOL, definable symbols are types and constants. The latter may be ad-hoc overloaded, i.e. have different definitions for non-overlapping types. We prove that symbols that are independent of a new definition may keep their interpretation in a model extension. This work revises our earlier notion of model-theoretic conservative extension and generalises an earlier model construction. We obtain consistency of theories of definitions in higher-order logic (HOL) with ad-hoc overloading as a corollary. Our results are mechanised in the HOL4 theorem prover.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2020, arXiv:2101.0283

A consistent foundation for Isabelle/HOL

The interactive theorem prover Isabelle/HOL is based on the well understood higher-order logic (HOL), which is widely believed to be consistent (and provably consistent in set theory by a standard semantic argument). However, Isabelle/HOL brings its own personal touch to HOL: overloaded constant definitions, used to provide the users with Haskell-like type classes. These features are a delight for the users, but unfortunately are not easy to get right as an extension of HOL—they have a history of inconsistent behavior. It has been an open question under which criteria overloaded constant definitions and type definitions can be combined together while still guaranteeing consistency. This paper presents a solution to this problem: non-overlapping definitions and termination of the definition-dependency relation (tracked not only through constants but also through types) ensures relative consistency of Isabelle/HOL

From types to sets by local type definition in higher-order logic

Types in higher-order logic (HOL) are naturally interpreted as nonempty sets. This intuition is reflected in the type definition rule for the HOL-based systems (including Isabelle/HOL), where a new type can be defined whenever a nonempty set is exhibited. However, in HOL this definition mechanism cannot be applied inside proof contexts. We propose a more expressive type definition rule that addresses the limitation and we prove its consistency. This higher expressive power opens the opportunity for a HOL tool that relativizes type-based statements to more flexible set-based variants in a principled way. We also address particularities of Isabelle/HOL and show how to perform the relativization in the presence of type classes

Bindings as bounded natural functors

We present a general framework for specifying and reasoning about syntax with bindings. Abstract binder types are modeled using a universe of functors on sets, subject to a number of operations that can be used to construct complex binding patterns and binding-aware datatypes, including non-well-founded and infinitely branching types, in a modular fashion. Despite not committing to any syntactic format, the framework is “concrete” enough to provide definitions of the fundamental operators on terms (free variables, alpha-equivalence, and capture-avoiding substitution) and reasoning and definition principles. This work is compatible with classical higher-order logic and has been formalized in the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL

Bindings as bounded natural functors

We present a general framework for specifying and reasoning about syntax with bindings. Abstract binder types are modeled using a universe of functors on sets, subject to a number of operations that can be used to construct complex binding patterns and binding-aware datatypes, including non-well-founded and infinitely branching types, in a modular fashion. Despite not committing to any syntactic format, the framework is “concrete” enough to provide definitions of the fundamental operators on terms (free variables, alpha-equivalence, and capture-avoiding substitution) and reasoning and definition principles. This work is compatible with classical higher-order logic and has been formalized in the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL

Admissible types-to-PERs relativization in higher-order logic

Relativizing statements in Higher-Order Logic (HOL) from types to sets is useful for improving productivity when working with HOL-based interactive theorem provers such as HOL4, HOL Light and Isabelle/HOL. This paper provides the first comprehensive definition and study of types-to-sets relativization in HOL, done in the more general form of types-to-PERs (partial equivalence relations). We prove that, for a large practical fragment of HOL which includes container types such as datatypes and codatatypes, types-to-PERs relativization is admissible, in that the provability of the original, type-based statement implies the provability of its relativized, PER-based counterpart. Our results also imply the admissibility of a previously proposed axiomatic extension of HOL with local type definitions. We have implemented types-to-PERs relativization as an Isabelle tool that performs relativization of HOL theorems on demand

Automated Deduction – CADE 28

This open access book constitutes the proceeding of the 28th International Conference on Automated Deduction, CADE 28, held virtually in July 2021. The 29 full papers and 7 system descriptions presented together with 2 invited papers were carefully reviewed and selected from 76 submissions. CADE is the major forum for the presentation of research in all aspects of automated deduction, including foundations, applications, implementations, and practical experience. The papers are organized in the following topics: Logical foundations; theory and principles; implementation and application; ATP and AI; and system descriptions