A Science of Reasoning

This paper addresses the question of how we can understand reasoning in general and mathematical proofs in particular. It argues the need for a high-level understanding of proofs to complement the low-level understanding provided by Logic. It proposes a role for computation in providing this high-level understanding, namely by the association of proof plans with proofs. Proof plans are defined and examples are given for two families of proofs. Criteria are given for assessing the association of a proof plan with a proof. 1 Motivation: the understanding of mathematical proofs The understanding of reasoning has interested researchers since, at least, Aristotle. Logic has been proposed by Aristotle, Boole, Frege and others as a way of formalising arguments and understanding their structure. There have also been psychological studies of how people and animals actually do reason. The work on Logic has been especially influential in the automation of reasoning. For instance, resolution..

The use of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics

This paper discusses the usse of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics. It was presented at the Workshop on Computer-Supported Mathematical Theory Development held at IJCAR in 2004. The aim of this project is to evaluate the applicability of data-mining techniques to the automatic formation of tactics from large corpuses of proofs. We data-mine information from large proof corpuses to find commonly occurring patterns. These patterns are then evolved into tactics using genetic programming techniques

New Equations for Neutral Terms: A Sound and Complete Decision Procedure, Formalized

The definitional equality of an intensional type theory is its test of type compatibility. Today's systems rely on ordinary evaluation semantics to compare expressions in types, frustrating users with type errors arising when evaluation fails to identify two `obviously' equal terms. If only the machine could decide a richer theory! We propose a way to decide theories which supplement evaluation with `$\nu$-rules', rearranging the neutral parts of normal forms, and report a successful initial experiment. We study a simple -calculus with primitive fold, map and append operations on lists and develop in Agda a sound and complete decision procedure for an equational theory enriched with monoid, functor and fusion laws

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

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

On the engineering of crucial software

The various aspects of the conventional software development cycle are examined. This cycle was the basis of the augmented approach contained in the original grant proposal. This cycle was found inadequate for crucial software development, and the justification for this opinion is presented. Several possible enhancements to the conventional software cycle are discussed. Software fault tolerance, a possible enhancement of major importance, is discussed separately. Formal verification using mathematical proof is considered. Automatic programming is a radical alternative to the conventional cycle and is discussed. Recommendations for a comprehensive approach are presented, and various experiments which could be conducted in AIRLAB are described

The Vampire and the FOOL

This paper presents new features recently implemented in the theorem prover Vampire, namely support for first-order logic with a first class boolean sort (FOOL) and polymorphic arrays. In addition to having a first class boolean sort, FOOL also contains if-then-else and let-in expressions. We argue that presented extensions facilitate reasoning-based program analysis, both by increasing the expressivity of first-order reasoners and by gains in efficiency

Towards composition of verified hardware devices

Computers are being used where no affordable level of testing is adequate. Safety and life critical systems must find a replacement for exhaustive testing to guarantee their correctness. Through a mathematical proof, hardware verification research has focused on device verification and has largely ignored system composition verification. To address these deficiencies, we examine how the current hardware verification methodology can be extended to verify complete systems