Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userIntegrating an Automated Prover for Projective Geometry as a New Tactic in the Coq Proof Assistant
139
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Nicolas Magaud
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Recently, we developed an automated theorem prover for projective incidence geometry. This prover, based on a combinatorial approach using matroids, proceeds by saturation using the matroid rules. It is designed as an independent tool, implemented in C, which takes a geometric configuration as input and produces as output some Coq proof scripts: the statement of the expected theorem, a proof script proving the theorem and possibly some auxiliary lemmas. In this document, we show how to embed such an external tool as a plugin in Coq so that it can be used as a simple tactic.
rate research
Read More
The interoperability of proof assistants and the integration of their libraries is a highly valued but elusive goal in the field of theorem proving. As a preparatory step, in previous work, we translated the libraries of multiple proof assistants, specifically the ones of Coq, HOL Light, IMPS, Isabelle, Mizar, and PVS into a universal format: OMDoc/MMT. Each translation presented tremendous theoretical, technical, and social challenges, some universal and some system-specific, some solvable and some still open. In this paper, we survey these challenges and compare and evaluate the solutions we chose. We believe similar library translations will be an essential part of any future system interoperability solution and our experiences will prove valuable to others undertaking such efforts.
The Students Proof Assistant (SPA) aims to both teach how to use a proof assistant like Isabelle and also to teach how reliable proof assistants are built. Technically it is a miniature proof assistant inside the Isabelle proof assistant. In addition we conjecture that a good way to teach structured proving is with a concrete prover where the connection between semantics, proof system, and prover is clear. The proofs in Lamports TLAPS proof assistant have a very similar structure to those in the declarative prover SPA. To illustrate this we compare a proof of Pelletiers problem 43 in TLAPS, Isabelle/Isar and SPA. We also consider Pelletiers problem 34, also known as Andrewss Challenge, where students are encouraged to develop their own justification function and thus obtain a lot of insight into the proof assistant. Although SPA is fully functional we have so far only used it in a few educational scenarios.
The Abella interactive theorem prover has proven to be an effective vehicle for reasoning about relational specifications. However, the system has a limitation that arises from the fact that it is based on a simply typed logic: formalizations that are identical except in the respect that they apply to different types have to be repeated at each type. We develop an approach that overcomes this limitation while preserving the logical underpinnings of the system. In this approach object constructors, formulas and other relevant logical notions are allowed to be parameterized by types, with the interpretation that they stand for the (infinite) collection of corresponding constructs that are obtained by instantiating the type parameters. The proof structures that we consider for formulas that are schematized in this fashion are limited to ones whose type instances are valid proofs in the simply typed logic. We develop schematic proof rules that ensure this property, a task that is complicated by the fact that type information influences the notion of unification that plays a key role in the logic. Our ideas, which have been implemented in an updated version of the system, accommodate schematic polymorphism both in the core logic of Abella and in the executable specification logic that it embeds.
Formally reasoning about functional programs is supposed to be straightforward and elegant, however, it is not typically done as a matter of course. Reasoning in a proof assistant requires reimplementing the code in those tools, which is far from trivial. SMLtoCoq provides an automatic translation of SML programs and function contracts into Coq. Programs are translated into Coq specifications, and function contracts into theorems, which can then be formally proved. Using the Equations plugin and other well established Coq libraries, SMLtoCoq is able to translate SML programs without side-effects containing partial functions, structures, functors, records, among others. Additionally, we provide a Coq version of many parts of SMLs basis library, so that calls to these libraries are kept almost as is.
RedPRL is an experimental proof assistant based on Cartesian cubical computational type theory, a new type theory for higher-dimensional constructions inspired by homotopy type theory. In the style of Nuprl, RedPRL users employ tactics to establish behavioral properties of cubical functional programs embodying the constructive content of proofs. Notably, RedPRL implements a two-level type theory, allowing an extensional, proof-irrelevant notion of exact equality to coexist with a higher-dimensional proof-relevant notion of paths.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
