Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Set theory for verification: I. From foundations to functions

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A logic for specification and verification is derived from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. The proofs are performed using the proof assistant Isabelle. Isabelle is generic, supporting several different logics. Isabelle has the flexibility to adapt to variants of set theory. Its higher-order syntax supports the definition of new binding operators. Unknowns in subgoals can be instantiated incrementally. The paper describes the derivation of rules for descriptions, relations, and functions and discusses interactive proofs of Cantor's Theorem, the Composition of Homomorphisms challenge [9], and Ramsey's Theorem [5]. A generic proof assistant can stand up against provers dedicated to particular logics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aczel, Peter,Non-Well-Founded Sets, CSLI (1988).

  2. Andrews, Peter B., Miller, Dale A., Cohen, Eve L. and Pfenning, Frank, ‘Automating higher-order logic’, in W. W. Bledsoe and D. W. Loveland (Eds.),Automated Theorem Proving: After 25 Years, pp. 169–192, American Mathematical Society (1984).

  3. Bailin, Sidney C., ‘A λ-unifiability test for set theory’,J. Automated Reasoning,4(3), 269–286 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bailin, Sidney C. and Barker-Plummer, Dave, ‘ℒ-match: An inference rule for incrementally elaborating set instantiations’, Technical report, Swarthmore College, second revision (1993).

  5. Basin, David and Kaufmann, Matt, ‘The Boyer-Moore prover and Nuprl: An experimental comparison’, in Gérard Huet and Gordon Plotkin (Eds.),Logical Frameworks, pp. 89–119, Cambridge University Press (1991).

  6. Bledsoe, W. W., ‘Non-resolution theorem proving’,Artificial Intelligence,9 1–35 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bledsoe, W. W., ‘A maximal method for set variables in automatic theorem-proving’, in J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and L. I. Mikulich (Eds.),Machine Intelligence 9, pp. 53–100, Ellis Horwood Ltd (1979).

  8. Bledsoe, W. W. and Feng, Guohui, ‘Set-var’, Technical report, University of Texas at Austin, March (1993);J. Automated Reasoning (forthcoming).

  9. Boyer, Robert, Lusk, Ewing, McCune, William, Overbeek, Ross, Stickel, Mark and Wos, Lawrence, ‘Set theory in first-order logic: Clauses for Gödel's axioms’,J. Automated Reasoning,2(3), 287–327 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, Frank Malloy, ‘Toward the automation of set theory and its logic’,Artificial Intelligence,10 281–316 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cantone, D., ‘Decision procedures for elementary sublanguages of set theory: X. Multilevel syllogistic extended by the singleton and powerset operators’,J. Automated Reasoning,7(2), 193–230 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Claesen, L. J. M. and Gordon, M. J. C., (Eds.),Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Its Applications, North-Holland (1993).

  13. Corella, Francisco, ‘Mechanizing set theory’, Technical Report RC 14706 (#65927), IBM Watson Research Center (1989).

  14. Devlin, Keith J.,Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory, Springer (1979).

  15. Felty, Amy, ‘A logic program for transforming sequent proofs to natural deduction proofs’, in Peter Schroeder-Heister (Ed.),Extensions of Logic Programming, pp. 157–178, Springer (1991). LNAI 475.

  16. Givan, R., McAllester, D., Witty, C. and Zalondek, K., ‘Ontic: Language specification and user's manual’, Technical report, MIT, 1992. Draft 4.

  17. Gödel, Kurt, ‘The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum hypothesis with the axioms of set theory’, In S. Fefermanet al. (Eds.),Kurt Gödel: Collected Works, Vol. II, Oxford University Press (1990). Paper first published in 1940.

  18. Gordon, Michael J. C., ‘Why higher-order logic is a good formalism for specifying and verifying hardware’, in G. Milne and P. A. Subrahmanyam (Eds.),Formal Aspects of VLSI Design, pp. 153–177, North-Holland (1986).

  19. Gordon, Michael J. C., ‘HOL: A proof generating system for higher-order logic’, in Graham Birtwistle and P. A. Subrahmanyam (Eds.),VLSI Specification, Verification and Synthesis, pp. 73–128, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1988).

  20. Graham, Brian T.,The SECD Microprocessor: A Verification Case Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1992).

  21. Halmos, Paul R.,Naive Set Theory, Van Nostrand (1960).

  22. Huet, G. P., ‘A unification algorithm for typed λ-calculus’,Theor. Computer Sci.,1 27–57 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kaufmann, Matt, ‘An extension of the Boyer-Moore theorem prover to support first-order quantification’,J. Automated Reasoning,9(3), 355–372 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kunen, Kenneth,Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs, North-Holland (1980).

  25. Lamport, Leslie, ‘The temporal logic of actions’, Technical report, DEC Systems Research Center (1991).

  26. Lamport, Leslie, ‘Types considered harmful’, Technical report, DEC Systems Research Center (1992). Draft.

  27. Leclerc, F. and Paulin-Mohring, Ch., ‘Programming with streams in Coq. A case study: the sieve of Eratosthenes’, in B. Nordström, K. Petersson, and G. Plotkin (Eds.),Workshop of Types for Proofs and Programs, pp. 245–261 (June, 1992). Båstad, Sweden.

  28. McCarty, David C., ‘Realizability and recursive mathematics’, Technical Report CMU-CS-84-131, Carnegie-Mellon University (1984).

  29. McDonald, James and Suppes, Patrick, ‘Student use of an interactive theorem prover’, in W. W. Bledsoe and D. W. Loveland (Eds.),Automated Theorem Proving: After 25 Years, pp. 315–360, American Mathematical Society (1984).

  30. Miller, Dale, ‘Unification under a mixed prefix’,J. Symbolic Computation,14(4), 321–358 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nipkow, Tobias, ‘Constructive rewriting’,Computer J.,34 34–41 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Noël, Philippe, ‘Experimenting with Isabelle in ZF set theory,J. Automated Reasoning,10(1), 15–58 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nordström, Bengt, Petersson, Kent and Smith, Jan,Programming in Martin-Löf's Type Theory. An Introduction, Oxford University Press (1990).

  34. Pastre, Dominque, ‘Automatic theorem proving in set theory’,Artificial Intelligence,10 1–27 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Paulson, Lawrence C., ‘The foundation of a generic theorem prover’,J. Automated Reasoning,5(3), 363–397 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Paulson, Lawrence C., ‘Isabelle: The next 700 theorem provers’, in P. Odifreddi (Ed.),Logic and Computer Science, pp. 361–386, Academic Press (1990).

  37. Paulson, Lawrence C., ‘Introduction to Isabelle’, Technical Report 280, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (1993).

  38. Paulson, Lawrence C., ‘The Isabelle reference manual’, Technical Report 283, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (1993).

  39. Paulson, Lawrence C., ‘Isabelle's object-logics’, Technical Report 286, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (1993).

  40. Paulson, Lawrence C., ‘Set theory for verification: II. Induction and recursion’, Technical Report 312, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (1993).

  41. Pelletier, F. J., ‘Seventy-five problems for testing automatic theorem provers’,J. Automated Reasoning,2 191–216 (1986). Errata,Loc. cit.,4, 235–236 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Plaisted, David A. and Potter, Richard C., ‘Term rewriting: Some experimental results’,J. Symbolic Computation,11 149–180 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Prawitz, Dag, ‘Ideas and results in proof theory’, in J. E. Fenstad (Ed.),Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp. 235–308, North Holland (1971).

  44. Quaife, Art, ‘Automated deduction in von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory,J. Automated Reasoning,8(1), 91–147 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ryser, Herbert John,Combinatorial Mathematics, Mathematical Association of America (1963).

  46. Saaltink, Mark, ‘TheEves library’, Technical Report TR-91-5449-03, ORA Canada, 265 Carling Avanue, Suite 506, Ottawa, Ontario (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Saaltink, Mark, ‘TheEves library models’, Technical Report TR-91-5449-04, ORA Canada, 265 Carling Avanue, Suite 506, Ottawa, Ontario (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Saaltink, Mark, Kromodimoeljo, Sentot, Pase, Bill, Craigen, Dan and Meisels, Irwin, ‘AnEves data abstraction example’, in J. C. P. Woodcock and P. G. Larsen (Eds.),FME '93: Industrial-Strength Formal Methods, pp. 578–596, Springer (1993), LNCS 670.

  49. Schmidt, David, ‘Natural deduction theorem proving in set theory’, Technical Report CSR-142-83, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh (1983).

  50. Shoenfield, J. R., ‘Axioms of set theory’, in J. Barwise (Ed.),Handbook of Mathematical Logic, pp. 321–344, North-Holland (1977).

  51. Suppes, Patrick,Axiomatic Set Theory, Dover (1972).

  52. Thompson, Simon,Type Theory and Functional Programming, Addison-Wesley (1991).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Lawrence C. Paulson

Authors
  1. Lawrence C. Paulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paulson, L.C. Set theory for verification: I. From foundations to functions. J Autom Reasoning 11, 353–389 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881873

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881873

Key words

Search

Navigation