Building an IDE for the Calculational Derivation of Imperative Programs

In this paper, we describe an IDE called CAPS (Calculational Assistant for Programming from Specifications) for the interactive, calculational derivation of imperative programs. In building CAPS, our aim has been to make the IDE accessible to non-experts while retaining the overall flavor of the pen-and-paper calculational style. We discuss the overall architecture of the CAPS system, the main features of the IDE, the GUI design, and the trade-offs involved.Comment: In Proceedings F-IDE 2015, arXiv:1508.0338

Isabelle/PIDE as Platform for Educational Tools

The Isabelle/PIDE platform addresses the question whether proof assistants of the LCF family are suitable as technological basis for educational tools. The traditionally strong logical foundations of systems like HOL, Coq, or Isabelle have so far been counter-balanced by somewhat inaccessible interaction via the TTY (or minor variations like the well-known Proof General / Emacs interface). Thus the fundamental question of math education tools with fully-formal background theories has often been answered negatively due to accidental weaknesses of existing proof engines. The idea of "PIDE" (which means "Prover IDE") is to integrate existing provers like Isabelle into a larger environment, that facilitates access by end-users and other tools. We use Scala to expose the proof engine in ML to the JVM world, where many user-interfaces, editor frameworks, and educational tools already exist. This shall ultimately lead to combined mathematical assistants, where the logical engine is in the background, without obstructing the view on applications of formal methods, formalized mathematics, and math education in particular.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Automated Generation of User Guidance by Combining Computation and Deduction

Herewith, a fairly old concept is published for the first time and named "Lucas Interpretation". This has been implemented in a prototype, which has been proved useful in educational practice and has gained academic relevance with an emerging generation of educational mathematics assistants (EMA) based on Computer Theorem Proving (CTP). Automated Theorem Proving (ATP), i.e. deduction, is the most reliable technology used to check user input. However ATP is inherently weak in automatically generating solutions for arbitrary problems in applied mathematics. This weakness is crucial for EMAs: when ATP checks user input as incorrect and the learner gets stuck then the system should be able to suggest possible next steps. The key idea of Lucas Interpretation is to compute the steps of a calculation following a program written in a novel CTP-based programming language, i.e. computation provides the next steps. User guidance is generated by combining deduction and computation: the latter is performed by a specific language interpreter, which works like a debugger and hands over control to the learner at breakpoints, i.e. tactics generating the steps of calculation. The interpreter also builds up logical contexts providing ATP with the data required for checking user input, thus combining computation and deduction. The paper describes the concepts underlying Lucas Interpretation so that open questions can adequately be addressed, and prerequisites for further work are provided.Comment: In Proceedings THedu'11, arXiv:1202.453

Functional declarative language design and predicate calculus: A practical approach

A

Calculational Proofs in ACL2s

Teaching college students how to write rigorous proofs is a critical objective in courses that introduce formal reasoning. Over the course of several years, we have developed a mechanically-checkable style of calculational reasoning that we used to teach over a thousand freshman-level undergraduate students how to reason about computation in our "Logic and Computation" class at Northeastern University. We were inspired by Dijkstra, who advocated the use of calculational proofs, writing "calculational proofs are almost always more effective than all informal alternatives, ..., the design of calculational proofs seems much more teachable than the elusive art of discovering an informal proof." Our calculational proof checker is integrated into ACL2s and is available as an Eclipse IDE plugin, via a Web interface, and as a stand-alone tool. It automatically checks proofs for correctness and provides useful feedback. We describe the architecture of the checker, its proof format, its underlying algorithms, its correctness and provide examples using proofs from our undergraduate class and from Dijkstra. We also describe our experiences using the proof checker to teach undergraduates how to formally reason about computation