اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAdvanced Proof Viewing in ProofTool
40
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Sequent calculus is widely used for formalizing proofs. However, due to the proliferation of data, understanding the proofs of even simple mathematical arguments soon becomes impossible. Graphical user interfaces help in this matter, but since they normally utilize Gentzens original notation, some of the problems persist. In this paper, we introduce a number of criteria for proof visualization which we have found out to be crucial for analyzing proofs. We then evaluate recent developments in tree visualization with regard to these criteria and propose the Sunburst Tree layout as a complement to the traditional tree structure. This layout constructs inferences as concentric circle arcs around the root inference, allowing the user to focus on the proofs structural content. Finally, we describe its integration into ProofTool and explain how it interacts with the Gentzen layout.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
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 ar
e 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.
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.
Formalising the pi-calculus is an illuminating test of the expressiveness of logical frameworks and mechanised metatheory systems, because of the presence of name binding, labelled transitions with name extrusion, bisimulation, and structural congrue
nce. Formalisations have been undertaken in a variety of systems, primarily focusing on well-studied (and challenging) properties such as the theory of process bisimulation. We present a formalisation in Agda that instead explores the theory of concurrent transitions, residuation, and causal equivalence of traces, which has not previously been formalised for the pi-calculus. Our formalisation employs de Bruijn indices and dependently-typed syntax, and aligns the proved transitions proposed by Boudol and Castellani in the context of CCS with the proof terms naturally present in Agdas representation of the labelled transition relation. Our main contributions are proofs of the diamond lemma for residuation of concurrent transitions and a formal definition of equivalence of traces up to permutation of transitions.
In recent work, we formalized the theory of optimal-size sorting networks with the goal of extracting a verified checker for the large-scale computer-generated proof that 25 comparisons are optimal when sorting 9 inputs, which required more than a de
cade of CPU time and produced 27 GB of proof witnesses. The checker uses an untrusted oracle based on these witnesses and is able to verify the smaller case of 8 inputs within a couple of days, but it did not scale to the full proof for 9 inputs. In this paper, we describe several non-trivial optimizations of the algorithm in the checker, obtained by appropriately changing the formalization and capitalizing on the symbiosis with an adequate implementation of the oracle. We provide experimental evidence of orders of magnitude improvements to both runtime and memory footprint for 8 inputs, and actually manage to check the full proof for 9 inputs.
It is well-known that the size of propositional classical proofs can be huge. Proof theoretical studies discovered exponential gaps between normal or cut free proofs and their respective non-normal proofs. The aim of this work is to study how to redu
ce the weight of propositional deductions. We present the formalism of proof-graphs for purely implicational logic, which are graphs of a specific shape that are intended to capture the logical structure of a deduction. The advantage of this formalism is that formulas can be shared in the reduced proof. In the present paper we give a precise definition of proof-graphs for the minimal implicational logic, together with a normalization procedure for these proof-graphs. In contrast to standard tree-like formalisms, our normalization does not increase the number of nodes, when applied to the corresponding minimal proof-graph representations.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
