Advertisement

Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 241–273 | Cite as

A Two-Level Logic Approach to Reasoning About Computations

  • Andrew Gacek
  • Dale Miller
  • Gopalan Nadathur
Article

Abstract

Relational descriptions have been used in formalizing diverse computational notions, including, for example, operational semantics, typing, and acceptance by non-deterministic machines. We therefore propose a (restricted) logical theory over relations as a language for specifying such notions. Our specification logic is further characterized by an ability to explicitly treat binding in object languages. Once such a logic is fixed, a natural next question is how we might prove theorems about specifications written in it. We propose to use a second logic, called a reasoning logic, for this purpose. A satisfactory reasoning logic should be able to completely encode the specification logic. Associated with the specification logic are various notions of binding: for quantifiers within formulas, for eigenvariables within sequents, and for abstractions within terms. To provide a natural treatment of these aspects, the reasoning logic must encode binding structures as well as their associated notions of scope, free and bound variables, and capture-avoiding substitution. Further, to support arguments about provability, the reasoning logic should possess strong mechanisms for constructing proofs by induction and co-induction. We provide these capabilities here by using a logic called \({\cal G}\) which represents relations over λ-terms via definitions of atomic judgments, contains inference rules for induction and co-induction, and includes a special generic quantifier. We show how provability in the specification logic can be transparently encoded in \({\cal G}\). We also describe an interactive theorem prover called Abella that implements \({\cal G}\) and this two-level logic approach and we present several examples that demonstrate the efficacy of Abella in reasoning about computations.

Keywords

Two-level logic Nominal abstraction Generic judgments ∇-quantification λ-tree syntax 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aydemir, B., Charguéraud, A., Pierce, B.C., Pollack, R., Weirich, S.: Engineering formal metatheory. In: 35th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 3–15. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aydemir, B.E., Bohannon, A., Fairbairn, M., Foster, J.N., Pierce, B.C., Sewell, P., Vytiniotis, D., Washburn, G., Weirich, S., Zdancewic, S.: Mechanized metatheory for the masses: the POPLmark challenge. In: Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics: 18th International Conference, number 3603 in LNCS, pp. 50–65. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baelde, D.: A Linear Approach to the Proof-Theory of Least and Greatest Fixed Points. PhD thesis, Ecole Polytechnique (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baelde, D., Gacek, A., Miller, D., Nadathur, G., Tiu, A.: The Bedwyr system for model checking over syntactic expressions. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) 21th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), number 4603 in LNAI, pp. 391–397. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Church, A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symb. Logic 5, 56–68 (1940)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coquand, T., Paulin, C.: Inductively defined types. In: Conference on Computer Logic. LNCS, vol. 417, pp. 50–66. Springer (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Despeyroux, J., Felty, A., Hirschowitz, A.: Higher-order abstract syntax in Coq. In: Second International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, pp. 124–138 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Felty, A., Momigliano, A.: Reasoning with hypothetical judgments and open terms in Hybrid. In: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP), pp. 83–92 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Felty, A., Momigliano, A.: Hybrid: a definitional two-level approach to reasoning with higher-order abstract syntax. J. Autom. Reason. (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10817-010-9194-x Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gacek, A.: The Abella interactive theorem prover (system description). In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) Fourth International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 5195, pp. 154–161. Springer (2008). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2305
  12. 12.
    Gacek, A.: The Abella System and Homepage. http://abella.cs.umn.edu/ (2009)
  13. 13.
    Gacek, A.: A Framework for Specifying, Prototyping, and Reasoning About Computational Systems. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gacek, A., Holte, S., Nadathur, G., Qi, X., Snow, Z.: The Teyjus System–Version 2, March 2008. Available from http://teyjus.cs.umn.edu/
  15. 15.
    Gacek, A., Miller, D., Nadathur, G.: Nominal abstraction. Inf. Comput. 209(1), 48–73 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harper, R., Honsell, F., Plotkin, G.: A framework for defining logics. J. ACM 40(1), 143–184 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahn, G.: Natural semantics. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. LNCS, vol. 247, pp. 22–39. Springer (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landin, P.J.: The mechanical evaluation of expressions. Comput. J. 6(5), 308–320 (1964)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Licata, D.R., Zeilberger, N., Harper, R.: Focusing on binding and computation. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) 23th Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 241–252. IEEE Computer Society Press (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McDowell, R., Miller, D.: Cut-elimination for a logic with definitions and induction. Theor. Comp. Sci. 232, 91–119 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDowell, R., Miller, D. Reasoning with higher-order abstract syntax in a logical framework. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 3(1), 80–136 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller, D.: Unification under a mixed prefix. J. Symb. Comput. 14(4), 321–358 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, D.: Abstract syntax for variable binders: an overview. In: Lloyd, J., et al. (eds.) Computational Logic—CL 2000, number 1861 in LNAI, pp. 239–253. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller, D., Nadathur, G., Pfenning, F., Scedrov, A.: Uniform proofs as a foundation for logic programming. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 51, 125–157 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller, D., Tiu, A.: A proof theory for generic judgments. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 6(4), 749–783 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Milner, R.: Functions as processes. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 2, 119–141 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nadathur, G., Miller, D.: An overview of λProlog. In: Fifth International Logic Programming Conference, Seattle, pp. 810–827. MIT Press (1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nadathur, G., Mitchell, D.J.: System description: Teyjus—a compiler and abstract machine based implementation of λProlog. In: Ganzinger, H. (ed.) 16th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), number 1632 in LNAI, Trento, pp. 287–291. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer (2002). LNCS Tutorial 2283Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pfenning, F., Schürmann, C.: System description: Twelf—a meta-logical framework for deductive systems. In: Ganzinger, H. (ed.) 16th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), number 1632 in LNAI, Trento, pp. 202–206. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pientka, B.: A type-theoretic foundation for programming with higher-order abstract syntax and first-class substitutions. In: 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’08), pp. 371–382. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pitts, A.M.: Nominal logic, a first order theory of names and binding. Inf. Comput. 186(2), 165–193 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Plotkin, G.: Call-by-name, call-by-value and the λ-calculus. Theor. Comp. Sci. 1(1), 125–159 (1976)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Plotkin, G.: LCF as a programming language. Theor. Comp. Sci. 5, 223–255 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Plotkin, G.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark (1981)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Poswolsky, A., Schürmann, C.: System description: Delphin—a functional programming language for deductive systems. In: Abel, A., Urban, C. (eds.) International Workshop on Logical Frameworks and Meta-Languages: Theory and Practice (LFMTP 2008), vol. 228, pp. 113–120 (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reynolds, J.: Definitional interpreters for higher order programming languages. In: ACM Conference Proceedings, pp. 717–740. ACM (1972)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sangiorgi, D.: The lazy lambda calculus in a concurrency scenario. Inf. Comput. 111(1), 120–153 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schürmann, C.: Automating the Meta Theory of Deductive Systems. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (2000). CMU-CS-00-146Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smorynski, C.: Modal logic and self-reference. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 11, 2nd edn., pp. 1–54. Kluwer Academic (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tiu, A.: A Logical Framework for Reasoning about Logical Specifications. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tiu, A.: A logic for reasoning about generic judgments. In: Momigliano, A., Pientka, B. (eds.) Int. Workshop on Logical Frameworks and Meta-Languages: Theory and Practice (LFMTP’06) (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tiu, A., Momigliano, A.: Induction and Co-Induction in Sequent Calculus. Available from http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4727 (2009)
  44. 44.
    Urban, C.: Nominal reasoning techniques in Isabelle/HOL. J. Autom. Reason. 40(4), 327–356 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA Saclay—Île-de-France & LIX/École PolytechniquePalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations