Type-alpha DPLs

This paper introduces Denotational Proof Languages (DPLs). DPLs are languages for presenting, discovering, and checking formal proofs. In particular, in this paper we discus type-alpha DPLs---a simple class of DPLs for which termination is guaranteed and proof checking can be performed in time linear in the size of the proof. Type-alpha DPLs allow for lucid proof presentation and for efficient proof checking, but not for proof search. Type-omega DPLs allow for search as well as simple presentation and checking, but termination is no longer guaranteed and proof checking may diverge. We do not study type-omega DPLs here. We start by listing some common characteristics of DPLs. We then illustrate with a particularly simple example: a toy type-alpha DPL called PAR, for deducing parities. We present the abstract syntax of PAR, followed by two different kinds of formal semantics: evaluation and denotational. We then relate the two semantics and show how proof checking becomes tantamount to evaluation. We proceed to develop the proof theory of PAR, formulating and studying certain key notions such as observational equivalence that pervade all DPLs. We then present NDL, a type-alpha DPL for classical zero-order natural deduction. Our presentation of NDL mirrors that of PAR, showing how every basic concept that was introduced in PAR resurfaces in NDL. We present sample proofs of several well-known tautologies of propositional logic that demonstrate our thesis that DPL proofs are readable, writable, and concise. Next we contrast DPLs to typed logics based on the Curry-Howard isomorphism, and discuss the distinction between pure and augmented DPLs. Finally we consider the issue of implementing DPLs, presenting an implementation of PAR in SML and one in Athena, and end with some concluding remarks.

Planning and Teaching Compliant Motion Strategies

This thesis presents a new high level robot programming system. The programming system can be used to construct strategies consisting of compliant motions, in which a moving robot slides along obstacles in its environment. The programming system is referred to as high level because the user is spared of many robot-level details, such as the specification of conditional tests, motion termination conditions, and compliance parameters. Instead, the user specifies task-level information, including a geometric model of the robot and its environment. The user may also have to specify some suggested motions. There are two main system components. The first component is an interactive teaching system which accepts motion commands from a user and attempts to build a compliant motion strategy using the specified motions as building blocks. The second component is an autonomous compliant motion planner, which is intended to spare the user from dealing with "simple" problems. The planner simplifies the representation of the environment by decomposing the configuration space of the robot into a finite state space, whose states are vertices, edges, faces, and combinations thereof. States are inked to each other by arcs, which represent reliable compliant motions. Using best first search, states are expanded until a strategy is found from the start state to a global state. This component represents one of the first implemented compliant motion planners. The programming system has been implemented on a Symbolics 3600 computer, and tested on several examples. One of the resulting compliant motion strategies was successfully executed on an IBM 7565 robot manipulator.