User interaction widgets for interactive theorem proving

Matita (that means pencil in Italian) is a new interactive theorem prover under development at the University of Bologna. When compared with state-of-the-art proof assistants, Matita presents both traditional and innovative aspects. The underlying calculus of the system, namely the Calculus of (Co)Inductive Constructions (CIC for short), is well-known and is used as the basis of another mainstream proof assistant—Coq—with which Matita is to some extent compatible. In the same spirit of several other systems, proof authoring is conducted by the user as a goal directed proof search, using a script for storing textual commands for the system. In the tradition of LCF, the proof language of Matita is procedural and relies on tactic and tacticals to proceed toward proof completion. The interaction paradigm offered to the user is based on the script management technique at the basis of the popularity of the Proof General generic interface for interactive theorem provers: while editing a script the user can move forth the execution point to deliver commands to the system, or back to retract (or “undo”) past commands. Matita has been developed from scratch in the past 8 years by several members of the Helm research group, this thesis author is one of such members. Matita is now a full-fledged proof assistant with a library of about 1.000 concepts. Several innovative solutions spun-off from this development effort. This thesis is about the design and implementation of some of those solutions, in particular those relevant for the topic of user interaction with theorem provers, and of which this thesis author was a major contributor. Joint work with other members of the research group is pointed out where needed. The main topics discussed in this thesis are briefly summarized below. Disambiguation. Most activities connected with interactive proving require the user to input mathematical formulae. Being mathematical notation ambiguous, parsing formulae typeset as mathematicians like to write down on paper is a challenging task; a challenge neglected by several theorem provers which usually prefer to fix an unambiguous input syntax. Exploiting features of the underlying calculus, Matita offers an efficient disambiguation engine which permit to type formulae in the familiar mathematical notation. Step-by-step tacticals. Tacticals are higher-order constructs used in proof scripts to combine tactics together. With tacticals scripts can be made shorter, readable, and more resilient to changes. Unfortunately they are de facto incompatible with state-of-the-art user interfaces based on script management. Such interfaces indeed do not permit to position the execution point inside complex tacticals, thus introducing a trade-off between the usefulness of structuring scripts and a tedious big step execution behavior during script replaying. In Matita we break this trade-off with tinycals: an alternative to a subset of LCF tacticals which can be evaluated in a more fine-grained manner. Extensible yet meaningful notation. Proof assistant users often face the need of creating new mathematical notation in order to ease the use of new concepts. The framework used in Matita for dealing with extensible notation both accounts for high quality bidimensional rendering of formulae (with the expressivity of MathMLPresentation) and provides meaningful notation, where presentational fragments are kept synchronized with semantic representation of terms. Using our approach interoperability with other systems can be achieved at the content level, and direct manipulation of formulae acting on their rendered forms is possible too. Publish/subscribe hints. Automation plays an important role in interactive proving as users like to delegate tedious proving sub-tasks to decision procedures or external reasoners. Exploiting the Web-friendliness of Matita we experimented with a broker and a network of web services (called tutors) which can try independently to complete open sub-goals of a proof, currently being authored in Matita. The user receives hints from the tutors on how to complete sub-goals and can interactively or automatically apply them to the current proof. Another innovative aspect of Matita, only marginally touched by this thesis, is the embedded content-based search engine Whelp which is exploited to various ends, from automatic theorem proving to avoiding duplicate work for the user. We also discuss the (potential) reusability in other systems of the widgets presented in this thesis and how we envisage the evolution of user interfaces for interactive theorem provers in the Web 2.0 era.

Theorem proving with abstraction, part II /

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant MCS 77-22830.

Theorem proving with abstraction, part I /

"UILU-ENG 79-1706."

Qualitative theorem proving in linear constraints

We know, from the classical work of Tarski on real closed fields, that elimination is, in principle, a fundamental engine for mechanized deduction. But, in practice, the high complexity of elimination algorithms has limited their use in the realization of mechanical theorem proving. We advocate qualitative theorem proving, where elimination is attractive since most processes of reasoning take place through the elimination of middle terms, and because the computational complexity of the proof is not an issue. Indeed what we need is the existence of the proof and not its mechanization. In this paper, we treat the linear case and illustrate the power of this paradigm by giving extremely simple proofs of two central theorems in the complexity and geometry of linear programming.

Computer Theorem Proving and HoTT

Theorem-proving is a one-player game. The history of computer programs being the players goes back to 1956 and the ‘LT’ LOGIC THEORY MACHINE of Newell, Shaw and Simon. In game-playing terms, the ‘initial position’ is the core set of axioms chosen for the particular logic and the ‘moves’ are the rules of inference. Now, the Univalent Foundations Program at IAS Princeton and the resulting ‘HoTT’ book on Homotopy Type Theory have demonstrated the success of a new kind of experimental mathematics using computer theorem proving.

Some new results on resolution in automated theorem proving,

Issued also as thesis (M.S.) University of Illinois.

A recursively defined ordering for proving termination of term rewriting systems /

NSF MCS 77-22830."

Axiomatisation of an Interval Calculus for Theorem Proving

We provide an axiomatisation of the Timed Interval Calculus, a set-theoretic notation for expressing properties of time intervals. We implement the axiomatisation in the Ergo theorem prover in order to allow the machine-checked proof of laws for reasoning about predicates expressed using interval operators. These laws can be then used in the machine-assisted verification of real-time applications.

Inductive Theorem Proving and Computer Algebra in the Mathweb Software Bus

Reasoning systems have reached a high degree of maturity in the last decade. However, even the most successful systems are usually not general purpose problem solvers but are typically specialised on problems in a certain domain. The MathWeb SOftware Bus (Mathweb-SB) is a system for combining reasoning specialists via a common osftware bus. We described the integration of the lambda-clam systems, a reasoning specialist for proofs by induction, into the MathWeb-SB. Due to this integration, lambda-clam now offers its theorem proving expertise to other systems in the MathWeb-SB. On the other hand, lambda-clam can use the services of any reasoning specialist already integrated. We focus on the latter and describe first experimnents on proving theorems by induction using the computational power of the MAPLE system within lambda-clam.

Is proof dead in the age of computers?

Some knowledge of what it means to construct a proof is an extremely important part of mathematics. All mathematics teachers and students should have some exposure to the ideas of proof and proving. This paper deals with the issue of creating proofs in mathematics problems.

A resolution style proof procedure for higher-order logic /

Thesis--Illinois.

A note on simplification orderings /

"April 1979."

Herbrand's Theorem and Equational Reasoning: Problems and Solutions

The famous Herbrand's theorem of mathematical logic plays an important role in automated theorem proving. In the first part of this article, we recall the theorem and formulate a number of natural decision problems related to it. Somewhat surprisingly, these problems happen to be equivalent. One of these problems is the so-called simultaneous rigid E-unification problem. In the second part, we survey recent result on the simultaneous rigid E-unification problem.

Contribuições para verificação automática de applets javacard

The widespread growth in the use of smart cards (by banks, transport services, and cell phones, etc) has brought an important fact that must be addressed: the need of tools that can be used to verify such cards, so to guarantee the correctness of their software. As the vast majority of cards that are being developed nowadays use the JavaCard technology as they software layer, the use of the Java Modeling Language (JML) to specify their programs appear as a natural solution. JML is a formal language tailored to Java. It has been inspired by methodologies from Larch and Eiffel, and has been widely adopted as the de facto language when dealing with specification of any Java related program. Various tools that make use of JML have already been developed, covering a wide range of functionalities, such as run time and static checking. But the tools existent so far for static checking are not fully automated, and, those that are, do not offer an adequate level of soundness and completeness. Our objective is to contribute to a series of techniques, that can be used to accomplish a fully automated and confident verification of JavaCard applets. In this work we present the first steps to this. With the use of a software platform comprised by Krakatoa, Why and haRVey, we developed a set of techniques to reduce the size of the theory necessary to verify the specifications. Such techniques have yielded very good results, with gains of almost 100% in all tested cases, and has proved as a valuable technique to be used, not only in this, but in most real world problems related to automatic verification