Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 221–259 | Cite as

Self-Formalisation of Higher-Order Logic

Semantics, Soundness, and a Verified Implementation
  • Ramana Kumar
  • Rob Arthan
  • Magnus O. Myreen
  • Scott Owens
Open Access
Article

Abstract

We present a mechanised semantics for higher-order logic (HOL), and a proof of soundness for the inference system, including the rules for making definitions, implemented by the kernel of the HOL Light theorem prover. Our work extends Harrison’s verification of the inference system without definitions. Soundness of the logic extends to soundness of a theorem prover, because we also show that a synthesised implementation of the kernel in CakeML refines the inference system. Apart from adding support for definitions and synthesising an implementation, we improve on Harrison’s work by making our model of HOL parametric on the universe of sets, and we prove soundness for an improved principle of constant specification in the hope of encouraging its adoption. Our semantics supports defined constants directly via a context, and we find this approach cleaner than our previous work formalising Wiedijk’s Stateless HOL.

Keywords

HOL Higher-order logic Verification Interactive theorem proving Theorem proving Consistency Semantics Self-formalisation Self-verification 

References

  1. 1.
    Aït Mohamed, O., Muñoz, C. A., Tahar, S. (eds.): Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, 21st International Conference, TPHOLs 2008, Montreal, Canada, August 18–21, 2008. Proceedings, volume 5170 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anand, A., Rahli, V.: Towards a formally verified proof assistant. In: Klein and Gamboa [15], pp. 27–44Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews P.B.: An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory, Vol. 27. Springer, NY (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arthan, R.: HOL Formalised: Semantics. http://www.lemma-one.com/ProofPower/specs/spc002.pdf
  5. 5.
    Arthan, R.: HOL constant definition done right. In: Klein and Gamboa [15], pp. 531–536Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barras B.: Sets in Coq, Coq in sets. J. Formalized Reason 3(1), 29–48 (2010)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertot, Y.: A short presentation of Coq. In: Aït Mohamed et al. [1], pp. 12–16Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Church A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symb. Log. 5(2), 56–68 (1940)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gödel K: Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte fr Mathematik und Physik 38(1), 173–198 (1931)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon, M.: From LCF to HOL: a short history. In: Plotkin, G.D., Stirling, C., Tofte, M. (eds.) Proof, Language, and Interaction, Essays in Honour of Robin Milner, pp. 169–186. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrison, J.: Towards self-verification of HOL Light. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.), Automated Reasoning, Third International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2006, Seattle, WA, USA, August 17–20, 2006, Proceedings, volume 4130 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 177–191. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrison, J.: HOL light: an overview. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.), TPHOLs, volume 5674 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 60–66. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henkin L.: Completeness in the theory of types. J. Symb. Log. 15, 81–91 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hurd, J.: The OpenTheory standard theory library. In: Bobaru M.G., Havelund K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.), NASA Formal Methods—Third International Symposium, NFM 2011, Pasadena, CA, USA, April 18–20, 2011. Proceedings, volume 6617 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 177–191. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein, G., Gamboa, R. (eds.): Interactive Theorem Proving—5th International Conference, ITP 2014, Held as Part of the Vienna Summer of Logic, VSL 2014, Vienna, Austria, July 14–17, 2014. Proceedings, volume 8558 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krauss, A., Schropp, A.: A mechanized translation from higher-order logic to set theory. In: Kaufmann, M., Paulson, L.C. (eds.) Interactive Theorem Proving, First International Conference, ITP 2010, Edinburgh, UK, July 11–14, 2010. Proceedings, volume 6172 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 323–338. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar, R., Arthan, R., Myreen, M.O., Owens, S.: HOL with definitions: Semantics, soundness, and a verified implementation. In: Klein and Gamboa [15], pp. 308–324Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar, R., Myreen, M.O., Norrish, M., Owens, S.: CakeML: A verified implementation of ML. In: Jagannathan, S., Sewell, P. (eds.) The 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’14, San Diego, CA, USA, January 20–21, 2014, pp. 179–192. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuratowski C.: Sur la notion de l’ordre dans la théorie des ensembles. Fundam. Math. 2(1), 161–171 (1921)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marić F.: Formal verification of a modern SAT solver by shallow embedding into Isabelle/HOL. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411(50), 4333–4356 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mendelson E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 5th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2009)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milner R.: A theory of type polymorphism in programming. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 17(3), 348–375 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Milner, R.: LCF: A way of doing proofs with a machine. In: Becvár, J. (eds.), Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1979, Proceedings, 8th Symposium, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia, September 3–7, 1979, volume 74 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 146–159. Springer, Berlin (1979)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Myreen, M.O., Davis, J.: The reflective Milawa theorem prover is sound—(down to the machine code that runs it). In: Klein and Gamboa [15], pp. 421–436Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Myreen M.O., Owens Scott: Proof-producing translation of higher-order logic into pure and stateful ML. J. Funct. Program. 24(2–3), 284–315 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Myreen, M.O., Owens, S., Kumar, R.: Steps towards verified implementations of HOL Light. In: Blazy, S., Paulin-Mohring, C., Pichardie, D. (eds.) Interactive Theorem Proving—4th International Conference, ITP 2013, Rennes, France, July 22–26, 2013. Proceedings, volume 7998 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 490–495. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pitts, A.M.: The HOL System: Logic, 3rd edition. http://hol-theorem-prover.org/documentation.html
  28. 28.
    Ridge, T., Margetson, J.: A mechanically verified, sound and complete theorem prover for first-order logic. In: Hurd, J., Melham, T.F. (eds.), Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, 18th International Conference, TPHOLs 2005, Oxford, UK, August 22–25, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3603 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 294–309. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slind, K., Norrish, M.: A brief overview of HOL4. In: Aït Mohamed et al. [1], pp. 28–32Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    VaughtRobert, L.: Set Theory: An introduction, 2nd edn. Birkhäuser, Basel (1994)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    von Wright J.: Representing higher-order logic proofs in HOL. Comput. J. 38(2), 171–179 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, Q., Barras, B.: Semantics of intensional type theory extended with decidable equational theories. In: Della Rocca, S.R. (ed.) Computer Science Logic 2013 (CSL 2013), CSL 2013, September 2–5, 2013, Torino, Italy, volume 23 of LIPIcs, pp. 653–667. Schloss Dagstuhl—Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wenzel, M., Paulson, L.C., Nipkow, T.: The Isabelle framework. In: Aït Mohamed et al. [1], pp. 33–38Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wiedijk, F.: Stateless HOL. In: Hirschowitz, T. (ed.) Proceedings Types for Proofs and Programs, Revised Selected Papers, TYPES 2009, Aussois, France, 12–15th May 2009, volume 53 of EPTCS, pp. 47–61 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramana Kumar
    • 1
  • Rob Arthan
    • 2
  • Magnus O. Myreen
    • 3
  • Scott Owens
    • 4
  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.CSE DepartmentChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  4. 4.School of ComputingUniversity of KentKentUK

Personalised recommendations