A Formalization of the Theorem of Existence of First-Order Most General Unifiers

This work presents a formalization of the theorem of existence of most general unifiers in first-order signatures in the higher-order proof assistant PVS. The distinguishing feature of this formalization is that it remains close to the textbook proofs that are based on proving the correctness of the well-known Robinson's first-order unification algorithm. The formalization was applied inside a PVS development for term rewriting systems that provides a complete formalization of the Knuth-Bendix Critical Pair theorem, among other relevant theorems of the theory of rewriting. In addition, the formalization methodology has been proved of practical use in order to verify the correctness of unification algorithms in the style of the original Robinson's unification algorithm.Comment: In Proceedings LSFA 2011, arXiv:1203.542

Formalizing the Ring of Witt Vectors

The ring of Witt vectors $\mathbb{W} R$ over a base ring $R$ is an important tool in algebraic number theory and lies at the foundations of modern $p$-adic Hodge theory. $\mathbb{W} R$ has the interesting property that it constructs a ring of characteristic $0$ out of a ring of characteristic $p > 1$, and it can be used more specifically to construct from a finite field containing $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ the corresponding unramified field extension of the $p$-adic numbers $\mathbb{Q}_p$ (which is unique up to isomorphism). We formalize the notion of a Witt vector in the Lean proof assistant, along with the corresponding ring operations and other algebraic structure. We prove in Lean that, for prime $p$, the ring of Witt vectors over $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ is isomorphic to the ring of $p$-adic integers $\mathbb{Z}_p$. In the process we develop idioms to cleanly handle calculations of identities between operations on the ring of Witt vectors. These calculations are intractable with a naive approach, and require a proof technique that is usually skimmed over in the informal literature. Our proofs resemble the informal arguments while being fully rigorous