Cyclic Proofs for First-Order Logic with Inductive Definitions
We consider a cyclic approach to inductive reasoning in the setting of first-order logic with inductive definitions. We present a proof system for this language in which proofs are represented as finite, locally sound derivation trees with a “repeat function” identifying cyclic proof sections. Soundness is guaranteed by a well-foundedness condition formulated globally in terms of traces over the proof tree, following an idea due to Sprenger and Dam. However, in contrast to their work, our proof system does not require an extension of logical syntax by ordinal variables.
A fundamental question in our setting is the strength of the cyclic proof system compared to the more familiar use of a non-cyclic proof system using explicit induction rules. We show that the cyclic proof system subsumes the use of explicit induction rules. In addition, we provide machinery for manipulating and analysing the structure of cyclic proofs, based primarily on viewing them as generating regular infinite trees, and also formulate a finitary trace condition sufficient (but not necessary) for soundness, that is computationally and combinatorially simpler than the general trace condition.
KeywordsProof System Predicate Symbol Trace Condition Sequent Calculus Induction Rule
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. In: EATCS: Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
- 4.Coquand, T.: Infinite objects in type theory. In: Barendregt, H., Nipkow, T. (eds.) Types for Proofs and Programs, pp. 62–78. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
- 6.Gentzen, G.: Investigations into logical deduction. In: Szabo, M.E. (ed.) The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, pp. 68–131. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1969)Google Scholar
- 7.Giménez, E.: A Calculus of Infinite Constructions and its application to the verification of communicating systems. PhD thesis, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon (1996)Google Scholar
- 9.Hamilton, G.: Poítin: Distilling theorems from conjectures (to appear)Google Scholar
- 10.Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J.S.: Computer-Aided Reasoning: An Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Martin-Löf, P.: Haupstatz for the intuitionistic theory of iterated inductive definitions. In: Fenstad, J.E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1971)Google Scholar
- 14.Schöpp, U.: Formal verification of processes. Master’s thesis, University of Edinburgh (2001)Google Scholar
- 16.Schürmann, C.: Automating the Meta-Theory of Deductive Systems. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University (2000)Google Scholar
- 17.Sprenger, C., Dam, M.: A note on global induction mechanisms in a μ-calculus with explicit approximations. Theoretical Informatics and Applications (July 2003) Full version of FICS 2002 paperGoogle Scholar
- 20.Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: Logic in Computer Science, LICS 1986, pp. 322–331 (1986)Google Scholar