ICALP 2001: Automata, Languages and Programming pp 963-978 | Cite as
An Axiomatic Approach to Metareasoning on Nominal Algebras in HOAS
Abstract
We present a logical framework ϒ for reasoning on a very general class of languages featuring binding operators, called nominal algebras, presented in higher-order abstract syntax (HOAS). ϒ is based on an axiomatic syntactic standpoint and it consists of a simple types theory à la Church extended with a set of axioms called the Theory of Contexts, recursion operators and induction principles. This framework is rather expressive and, most notably, the axioms of the Theory of Contexts allow for a smooth reasoning of schemata in HOAS. An advantage of this framework is that it requires a very low mathematical and logical overhead. Some case studies and comparison with related work are briefly discussed.
Keywords
higher-order abstract syntax induction logical frameworksPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.A. Bucalo, M. Hofmann, F. Honsell, M. Miculan, and I. Scagnetto. Using functor categories to explain and justify an axiomatization of variables and schemata in HOAS. In preparation, 2001.Google Scholar
- 2.J. Despeyroux, A. Felty, and A. Hirschowitz. Higher-order syntax in Coq. In Proc. of TLCA’95, LNCS 905. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
- 3.J. Despeyroux, F. Pfenning, and C. Schürmann. Primitive recursion for higher order abstract syntax. Technical Report CMU-CS-96-172, Carnegie Mellon University, September 1996.Google Scholar
- 4.M. P. Fiore, G. D. Plotkin, and D. Turi. Abstract syntax and variable binding. In G. Longo, ed., Proc. 14th LICS, pages 193–202. IEEE, 1999.Google Scholar
- 5.M. J. Gabbay. A Theory of Inductive Definitions With α-equivalence. PhD thesis, Trinity College, Cambridge University, 2000.Google Scholar
- 6.M. J. Gabbay and A. M. Pitts. A new approach to abstract syntax involving binders. In G. Longo, ed., Proc. 14th LICS, pages 214–224. IEEE, 1999.Google Scholar
- 7.R. Harper, F. Honsell, and G. Plotkin. A framework for defining logics. J. ACM, 40(1):143–184, Jan. 1993.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 8.M. Hofmann. Semantical analysis of higher-order abstract syntax. In G. Longo, ed., Proc. 14th LICS, pages 204–213. IEEE, 1999.Google Scholar
- 9.F. Honsell and M. Miculan. A natural deduction approach to dynamic logics. In Proc. of TYPES’95, LNCS 1158, pages 165–182. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
- 10.F. Honsell, M. Miculan, and I. Scagnetto. π-calculus in (co)inductive type theory. TCS 253(2):239–285, 2001. First appeared as a talk at TYPES’98 annual workshop.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 11.INRIA. The Coq Proof Assistant, 2000. http://www.coq.inria.fr/doc/main.html.
- 12.R. McDowell and D. Miller. A logic for reasoning with higher-order abstract syntax. In Proc. 12 th LICS. IEEE, 1997.Google Scholar
- 13.M. Miculan. Encoding Logical Theories of Programs. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, Italy, Mar. 1997.Google Scholar
- 14.M. Miculan. Encoding and metareasoning of call-by-name λ-calculus. Available at http://www.dimi.uniud.it/~miculan/CoqCode/HOAS, 2000.
- 15.R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes. Inform. and Comput., 100(1):1–77, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 16.F. Pfenning and C. Elliott. Higher-order abstract syntax. In Proc. of ACM SIGPLAN’ 88, pages 199–208, 1988.Google Scholar
- 17.A. M. Pitts and M. J. Gabbay. A metalanguage for programming with bound names modulo renaming. In Proc. MPC2000, LNCS 1837, pages 230–255. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
- 18.C. Röckl, D. Hirschkoff, and S. Berghofer. Higher-order abstract syntax with induction in Isabelle/HOL: Formalising the π-calculus and mechanizing the theory of contexts. In Proc. FOSSACS 2001, LNCS 2030, pages 359–373. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
- 19.I. Scagnetto. Reasoning on Names In Higher-Order Abstract Syntax. PhD thesis, Dip. di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Udine, 2002. In preparation.Google Scholar