Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Summary
Imps and Mathematical Analysis
Analysis
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

IMPS: An interactive mathematical proof system

Profile image of Joshua GuttmanJoshua Guttman

1993, Journal of Automated Reasoning

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881906
visibility

…

description

50 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

imps is an Interactive Mathematical Proof System intended as a general purpose tool for formulating and applying mathematics in a familiar fashion. The logic of imps is based on a version of simple type theory with partial functions and subtypes. Mathematical specification and inference are performed relative to axiomatic theories, which can be related to one another via inclusion and theory interpretation. imps provides relatively large primitive inference steps to facilitate human control of the deductive process and human comprehension of the resulting proofs. An initial theory library containing almost a thousand repeatable proofs covers significant portions of logic, algebra and analysis, and provides some support for modeling applications in computer science.

Related papers

Taclets: A new paradigm for constructing interactive theorem provers
Martin Giese

2004

Frameworks for interactive theorem proving give the user explicit control over the construction of proofs based on meta languages that contain dedicated control structures for describing proof construction. Such languages are not easy to master and thus contribute to the already long list of skills required by prospective users of interactive theorem provers. Most users, however, only need a convenient formalism that allows to introduce new rules with minimal overhead. On the the other hand, rules of calculi have not only purely logical content, but contain restrictions on the expected context of rule applications and heuristic information. We suggest a new and minimalist concept for implementing interactive theorem provers called taclet. Their usage can be mastered in a matter of hours, and they are efficiently compiled into the GUI of a prover. We implemented the KeY system, an interactive theorem prover for the full JAVA CARD language based on taclets.

View PDFchevron_right
A light-weight integration of automated and interactive theorem proving
Anton Setzer

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2014

In this paper, aimed at dependently typed programmers, we present a novel connection between automated and interactive theorem proving paradigms. The novelty is that the connection offers a better trade-off between usability, efficiency and soundness when compared to existing techniques. This technique allows for a powerful interactive proof framework that facilitates efficient verification of finite domain theorems and guided construction of the proof of infinite domain theorems. Such situations typically occur with industrial verification. As a case study, an embedding of SAT and CTL model checking is presented, both of which have been implemented for the dependently typed proof assistant Agda.Finally, an example of a real world railway control system is presented, and shown using our proof framework to be safe with respect to an abstract model of trains not colliding or derailing. We demonstrate how to formulate safety directly and show using interactive theorem proving that sign...

View PDFchevron_right
Preface to the special issue: Interactive theorem proving and the formalization of mathematics
Gérard Huet

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science

This special issue of Mathematical Structures in Computer Science is devoted to the theme of 'Interactive theorem proving and the formalisation of mathematics'.

View PDFchevron_right
SPECIAL ISSUE: INTERACTIVE THEOREM PROVING AND THE FORMALISATION OF MATHEMATICS Preface
Gérard Huet
View PDFchevron_right
A Generic Theorem Prover Construction Framework
Justin Ward

Formal software engineering methodologies provide a vast array of languages for specifying correctness properties and associated tools for property verification. Unfortunately, the implementation of each verification tool requires an early commitment to a particular methodology and language, in terms of both high-level semantic concerns and low-level syntactic representation of properties and proofs. In this paper, we present Prufrock, a novel approach to constructing automated reasoning systems, which abstracts semantic concerns over entire classes of potential object languages. Prufrock is a modular, generic prover framework written in Haskell taking advantage of its type class system. It consists of a set of independent logic modules defining the semantics required for proof over entire classes of abstract syntaxes using generic programming techniques. The fundamental contribution of Prufrock is that any object language may be used for specifying and verifying properties, as long as it provides a semantics consistent with the logic modules required for a proof. The implementation details of the reasoning system thus remain independent from the structure of the specification language. This facilitates large-scale reuse of logics as well as tacticals and proofs themselves when constructing or retargeting automated reasoning tools. At the same time, Prufrock aids in closing the gap between an object language and verification of objects written in it by operating on its abstract syntax directly rather than transforming it into a separate theorem proving language. * This material is based upon work supported by the United States National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 0209193 and 0350425 † This work was completed while a student in the System-Level Design Group at The University of Kansas properties, and axioms used in the verification process. Inference and proof are carried out by manipulating this syntax in a logically sound fashion. Unfortunately, this approach can be a serious hindrance to modularity and reuse due to the tight coupling between abstract syntax and the proof techniques used to manipulate it.

View PDFchevron_right
The mathematical foundation of the proof assistant Sparkle
Rinus Plasmeijer

2007

This report presents the mathematical foundation of the proof assistant Sparkle, which is dedicated to the lazy functional language Clean. The mathematical foundation provides a formalization of the programming, logic and proof languages that are supported by Sparkle. Furthermore, it formalizes the reduction of programs and the semantics of properties, and provides proofs for the soundness of the dened tactics.

View PDFchevron_right
The Theorema Environment for Interactive Proof Development
Temur Kutsia

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005

We describe an environment that allows the users of the Theorema system to flexibly control aspects of computer-supported proof development. The environment supports the display and manipulation of proof trees and proof situations, logs the user activities (commands communicated with the system during the proving session), and presents (also unfinished) proofs in a human-oriented style. In particular, the user can navigate through the proof object, expand/remove proof branches, provide witness terms, develop several proofs concurrently, proceed step by step or automatically and so on. The environment enhances the effectiveness and flexibility of the reasoners of the Theorema system.

View PDFchevron_right
Interactive proof construction at the task level
Christoph Benzmüller

User Interfaces for Theorem Provers, 2003

Abstract. Interactive theorem proving systems for mathematics require user interfaces which can present proof states in a human understandable way. Often the underlying calculi of interactive theorem proving systems are problematic for comprehensible presentations since they are not optimally suited for practical, human oriented reasoning in mathematical domains. The recently developed CORE theorem proving framework [Aut03] is an improvement of traditional calculi and facilitates flexible reasoning at the assertion level. ...

View PDFchevron_right
Partiality and recursion in interactive theorem provers – an overview
Ana Bove

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2014

The use of interactive theorem provers to establish the correctness of critical parts of a software development or for formalizing mathematics is becoming more common and feasible in practice. However, most mature theorem provers lack a direct treatment of partial and general recursive functions; overcoming this weakness has been the objective of intensive research during the last decades. In this article, we review several techniques that have been proposed in the literature to simplify the formalization of partial and general recursive functions in interactive theorem provers. Moreover, we classify the techniques according to their theoretical basis and their practical use. This uniform presentation of the different techniques facilitates the comparison and highlights their commonalities and differences, as well as their relative advantages and limitations. We focus on theorem provers based on constructive type theory (in particular, Agda and Coq) and higher-order logic (in partic...

View PDFchevron_right
8 Th International Workshop User Interfaces for Theorem Provers (uitp'08) Tphols'08 Satellite Workshop List of Contributions an Interactive Driver for Goal Directed Proof Strategies Managing Proof Documents for Asynchronous Processing a Lightweight Theorem Prover Interface for Eclipse Panoptes: an E
Andrea Asperti

2008

Interactive Theorem Provers (ITPs) are tools meant to assist the user during the formal development of mathematics. Automatic proof searching procedures are a desirable aid, and most ITPs supply the user with an extensive set of facilities to improve automation. However, the black-box nature of most automatic procedure conflicts with the interactive nature of these tools: a newcomer running an automatic procedure learns nothing by its execution (especially in case of failure), and a trained user has no opportunities to interactively guide the procedure towards the solution, e.g. pruning wrong or not promising branches of the search tree. In this paper we discuss the implementation of the resolution based automatic procedure of the Matita ITP, explicitly conceived to be interactively driven by the user through a suitable, simple graphical interface.

View PDFchevron_right

References (50)

  1. P. B. Andrews. An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth through Proof. Academic Press, 1986.
  2. P. B. Andrews, S. Issar, D. Nesmith, and F. Pfenning. The tps theorem proving system (system abstract). In M. E. Stickel, editor, 10th In- ternational Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 449 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 641-642. Springer-Verlag, 1990.
  3. W. W. Bledsoe. Some automatic proofs in analysis. In Automated The- orem Proving: After 25 Years. American Mathematical Society, 1984.
  4. G. S. Boolos. On second-order logic. Journal of Philosophy, 72:509-527, 1975.
  5. R. S. Boyer and J S. Moore. Integrating decision procedures into heuris- tic theorem provers: A case study of linear arithmetic. Technical Report icsca-cmp-44, Institute for Computing Science, University of Texas at Austin, January 1985.
  6. L. Cardelli and P. Wegner. On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism. Computing Surveys, 17:471-522, 1985.
  7. A. Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5:56-68, 1940.
  8. E. Clarke and X. Zhao. Analytica-a theorem prover in mathemat- ica. In D. Kapur, editor, Automated Deduction-CADE-11, volume 607 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 761-765. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
  9. R. L. Constable, S. F. Allen, H. M. Bromley, W. R. Cleaveland, J. F. Cremer, R. W. Harper, D. J. Howe, T. B. Knoblock, N. P. Mendler, P. Panangaden, J. T. Sasaki, and S. F. Smith. Implementing Mathemat- ics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1986.
  10. T. Coquand and G. Huet. The calculus of constructions. Information and Computation, 76:95-120, 1988.
  11. D. Craigen, S. Kromodimoeljo, I. Meisels, B. Pase, and M. Saaltink. eves: An overview. Technical Report CP-91-5402-43, ORA Corpora- tion, 1991.
  12. D. Craigen, S. Kromodimoeljo, I. Meisels, B. Pase, and M. Saaltink. Eves system description. In D. Kapur, editor, Automated Deduction- CADE-11, volume 607 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 771-775. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
  13. J. Dieudonné. Foundations of Modern Analysis. Academic Press, 1960.
  14. H. B. Enderton. A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic Press, 1972.
  15. W. M. Farmer. Abstract data types in many-sorted second-order logic. Technical Report M87-64, The mitre Corporation, 1987.
  16. W. M. Farmer. A partial functions version of Church's simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 55:1269-91, 1990.
  17. W. M. Farmer. A simple type theory with partial functions and sub- types. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 64:211-240, 1993.
  18. W. M. Farmer. A technique for safely extending axiomatic theories. Technical report, The mitre Corporation, 1993.
  19. W. M. Farmer, J. D. Guttman, and F. J. Thayer. Little theories. In D. Kapur, editor, Automated Deduction-CADE-11, volume 607 of Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, pages 567-581. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
  20. W. M. Farmer and F. J. Thayer. Two computer-supported proofs in metric space topology. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 38:1133-1138, 1991.
  21. S. Feferman. Systems of predicative analysis. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 29:1-30, 1964.
  22. G. Gentzen. Investigations into logical deduction (1935). In The Col- lected Works of Gerhard Gentzen. North Holland, 1969.
  23. J. A. Goguen. Principles of parameterized programming. Technical report, sri International, 1987.
  24. J. A. Goguen and R. M. Burstall. Introducing institutions. In Logic of Programs, volume 164 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 221-256. Springer-Verlag, 1984.
  25. M. Gordon, R. Milner, and C. P. Wadsworth. Edinburgh lcf: A Mech- anised Logic of Computation, volume 78 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1979.
  26. M. J. C. Gordon. hol: A proof generating system for higher-order logic. In G. Birtwistle and P. A. Surahmanyam, editors, VLSI Specifica- tion, Verification, and Synthesis, pages 73-128. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1987.
  27. J. Grundy. Window inference in the hol system. In Proceedings of the 1991 International Workshop on the hol Theorem Proving System and its Applications, pages 177-89. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.
  28. J. D. Guttman. A proposed interface logic for verification environments. Technical Report M91-19, The mitre Corporation, 1991.
  29. L. Henkin. Completeness in the theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 15:81-91, 1950.
  30. L. M. Hines. The central variable strategy of str + . ve. In D. Kapur, editor, Automated Deduction-CADE-11, volume 607 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 35-49. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
  31. W. A. Howard. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formal- ism, pages 479-490. Academic Press, 1980.
  32. M. Kohlhase. Unification in order-sorted type theory. In A. Voronkov, editor, Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, volume 624 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 421-432. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
  33. D. Kranz, R. Kelsey, J. Rees, P. Hudak, J. Philbin, and N. Adams. or- bit: An optimizing compiler for scheme. In Proceedings of the sigplan '86 Symposium on Compiler Construction, volume 21, pages 219-233, 1986. Proceedings of the '86 Symposium on Compiler Construction.
  34. P. Martin-Löf. Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In L. J. Cohen, J. Los, H. Pfeiffer, and K. P. Podewski, editors, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science VI, pages 153-175, Amsterdam, 1982. North-Holland.
  35. J. D. Monk. Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, 1976.
  36. L. G. Monk. Inference rules using local contexts. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4:445-462, 1988.
  37. Y. N. Moschovakis. Elementary Induction on Abstract Structures. North-Holland, 1974.
  38. Y. N. Moschovakis. Abstract recursion as a foundation for the theory of algorithms. In Computation and Proof Theory, Lecture Notes in Math- ematics 1104, pages 289-364. Springer-Verlag, 1984.
  39. S. Owre, J. M. Rushby, and N. Shankar. pvs: A prototype verification system. In D. Kapur, editor, Automated Deduction-CADE-11, volume 607 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 748-752. Springer- Verlag, 1992.
  40. B. Pase and S. Kromodimoeljo. m-Never system summary. In E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 310 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 738-39. Springer-Verlag, 1988.
  41. J. A. Rees, N. I. Adams, and J. R. Meehan. The T Manual. Computer Science Department, Yale University, fifth edition, 1988.
  42. J. Rushby, F. von Henke, and S. Owre. An introduction to formal specification and verification using ehdm. Technical Report sri-csl-91- 02, sri International, 1991.
  43. B. Russell. On denoting. Mind (New Series), 14:479-493, 1905.
  44. B. Russell. Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics, 30:222-262, 1908.
  45. S. Shapiro. Second-order languages and mathematical practice. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:714-742, 1985.
  46. J. R. Shoenfield. Mathematical Logic. Addison-Wesley, 1967.
  47. R. M. Stallman. gnu Emacs Manual (Version 18). Free Software Foun- dation, sixth edition edition, 1987.
  48. F. J. Thayer. Obligated term replacements. Technical Report MTR- 10301, The mitre Corporation, 1987.
  49. H. Weyl. Das Kontinuum. Veit, Leipzig, 1918.
  50. A. N. Whitehead and B. Russell. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press, 1910. Paperback version to section *56 published 1964.

Related papers

Towards an Interactive Mathematical Proof Mode
Henk Barendregt

Applied Logic Series, 2003

Formalizing mathematical proofs has as aim to represent arbitrary mathematical notions and proofs on a computer in order to construct a database of certified results useful to learn and develop the subject. At present it is mathematically not appealing to construct formal proofs. To make formalzing more mathematician-friendly one should have a good interface for proofs, definitions and computations. The proof-assistant Mizar does have a good interface for proofs, but not for making computations. Other assistants, like Coq based on type theory, does have a good interface for computations, but not for proofs. This paper sketches ways in which proofs are represented in a mathematical way. Although the underlying formalized statements come from the system Coq, this is not essential. Mainly the paper has as aim to convince implementers of mathematical assistants to make systems in such a way that formalizing proofs becomes natural. Much further developed is the work on Isar providing a mathematical proof language for the assistant Isabelle. The approach in this paper is to approximate a proof language by writing proof-sketches, a notion by Wiedijk, with the aim that they should eventually be verifiable by a proof-checker. Nederpelt [2002] has a different approach: there the emphasis is on the ease of providing formalizations of mathematical definitions.

View PDFchevron_right
An Emacs-Interface for Type-Directed Support for Constructing Proofs and Programs.
Dan Synek

ENTCS, 2006

This paper presents an emacs interface for an interactive editor for proofs and programs. The interface allows for editing proofs in the same way as we write programs, but in addition offers commands that help term construction. It differs from most other proof editors for its support for direct construction of terms rather than tactics for building them.

View PDFchevron_right
2 pagesIntegrating Automated and Interactive Theorem Proving in Type Theory
Toni Setzer

We introduce an approach of integrating automated theorem proving techniques into the interactive theorem prover Agda. Our approach is generic and flexible, and can be combined with dependently typed programming. We have implemented the special cases of SAT solving and CTL model checking. The tool has been used for verifying the correctness of railway interlocking systems.

View PDFchevron_right
jsCoq: Towards Hybrid Theorem Proving Interfaces
Pierre Jouvelot

Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 2017

We describe jsCoq, a new platform and user environment for the Coq interactive proof assistant. The jsCoq system targets the HTML5-ECMAScript 2015 specification, and it is typically run inside a standards-compliant browser, without the need of external servers or services. Targeting educational use, jsCoq allows the user to start interaction with proof scripts right away, thanks to its self-contained nature. Indeed, a full Coq environment is packed along the proof scripts, easing distribution and installation. Starting to use jsCoq is as easy as clicking on a link. The current release ships more than 10 popular Coq libraries, and supports popular books such as Software Foundations or Certified Programming with Dependent Types. The new target platform has opened up new interaction and display possibilities. It has also fostered the development of some new Coq-related technology. In particular, we have implemented a new serialization-based protocol for interaction with the proof assistant, as well as a new package format for library distribution.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards an Interactive Mathematical Proof
Henk Barendregt

2003

Formalizing mathematical proofs has as aim to represent arbitrary mathematical notions and proofs on a computer in order to construct a database of certified results useful to learn and develop the subject. At present it is mathematically not appealing to construct formal proofs. To make formalzing more mathematician-friendly one should have a good interface for proofs, definitions and computations. The proof-assistant Mizar does have a good interface for proofs, but not for making computations. Other assistants, like Coq based on type theory, does have a good interface for computations, but not for proofs. This paper sketches ways in which proofs are represented in a mathematical way. Although the underlying formalized statements come from the system Coq, this is not essential. Mainly the paper has as aim to convince implementers of mathematical assistants to make systems in such a way that formalizing proofs becomes natural. Much further developed is the work on Isar providing a mathematical proof language for the assistant Isabelle. The approach in this paper is to approximate a proof language by writing proof-sketches, a notion by Wiedijk, with the aim that they should eventually be verifiable by a proof-checker. Nederpelt [2002] has a different approach: there the emphasis is on the ease of providing formalizations of mathematical definitions. 1 <www.cs.kun.nl/~freek/aut> 2 <www.mizar.org> 3 <www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/NuPrl/nuprl.html> 4 <www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/HVG/Isabelle> 5 <archive.comlab.ox.ac.uk/formal-methods/hol.html> 6 <pauillac.inria.fr/coq> 7 <isabelle.in.tum.de/Isar>

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Science
  • Type Theory
  • Automated reasoning
  • Interactive Theorem Proving

    • Cited by

    An approach to literate and structured formal developments
    Matthias Weber

    Formal Aspects of Computing, 1996

    We present an approach to the literate and structured presentation of formal developments. We discuss the presentation of formal developments in a logical framework and distinguish three aspects: language-related aspects, structural aspects of proofs, and presentational aspects. We illustrate the approach by two examples: a simple mathematical proof of the Knaster-Tarski fixpoint theorem, and a formalization of the VDM development of a revision management system. * This paper can be retrieved by downloading the (compressed PostScript) file FACj_8E_ppl-.ps.Z which can be found in the directory pub/fac of the ftp.cs.man.ac.uk.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Formalising foundations of mathematics
    Florian Rabe

    Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2011

    Over the recent decades there has been a trend towards formalized mathematics, and a number of sophisticated systems have been developed to support the formalization process and mechanically verify its result. However, each tool is based on a specic foundation of mathematics, and formalizations in dierent systems are not necessarily compatible. Therefore, the integration of these foundations has received growing interest. We contribute to this goal by using LF as a foundational framework in which the mathematical foundations themselves can be formalized and therefore also the relations between them. We represent three of the most important foundations Isabelle/HOL, Mizar, and ZFC set theory as well as relations between them. The relations are formalized in such a way that the framework permits the extraction of translation functions, which are guaranteed to be well-dened and sound. Our work provides the starting point of a systematic study of formalized foundations in order to compare, relate, and integrate them.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Partiality and recursion in interactive theorem provers – an overview
    Ana Bove

    Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2014

    The use of interactive theorem provers to establish the correctness of critical parts of a software development or for formalizing mathematics is becoming more common and feasible in practice. However, most mature theorem provers lack a direct treatment of partial and general recursive functions; overcoming this weakness has been the objective of intensive research during the last decades. In this article, we review several techniques that have been proposed in the literature to simplify the formalization of partial and general recursive functions in interactive theorem provers. Moreover, we classify the techniques according to their theoretical basis and their practical use. This uniform presentation of the different techniques facilitates the comparison and highlights their commonalities and differences, as well as their relative advantages and limitations. We focus on theorem provers based on constructive type theory (in particular, Agda and Coq) and higher-order logic (in partic...

    View PDFchevron_right
    State and Progress in Strand Spaces: Proving Fair Exchange
    Joshua Guttman

    Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2012

    Many cryptographic protocols are intended to coordinate state changes among principals. Exchange protocols coordinate delivery of new values to the participants, e.g. additions to the set of values they possess. An exchange protocol is fair if it ensures that delivery of new values is balanced: If one participant obtains a new possession via the protocol, then all other participants will, too. Fair exchange requires progress assumptions, unlike some other protocol properties. The strand space model is a framework for design and verification of cryptographic protocols. A strand is a local behavior of a single principal in a single session of a protocol. A bundle is a partially ordered global execution built from protocol strands and adversary activities. The strand space model needs two additions for fair exchange protocols. First, we regard the state as a multiset of facts, and we allow strands to cause changes in this state via multiset rewriting. Second, progress assumptions stipulate that some channels are resilient-and guaranteed to deliver messages-and some principals are assumed not to stop at certain critical steps. This method leads to proofs of correctness that cleanly separate protocol properties, such as authentication and confidentiality, from invariants governing state evolution. G. Wang's recent fair exchange protocol illustrates the approach.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved