A support system for formal reasoning: Requirements and status

  • C. B. Jones
  • P. A. Lindsay
Applications And Tools
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 328)


Formal Method Inference Rule Formal Proof Natural Deduction Proof Obligation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J. Allen. An Investigation into the IOTA Project Support Environment. Technical Report UMCS 86-10-3, University of Manchester Computer Science Department, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Avron, F. Honsell, and I. Mason. Using Typed Lambda Calculus to Implement Formal Systems on a Machine. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-87-31, University of Edinburgh LFCS, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    N. Barghouti and G. Kaiser. Strategies in MARVEL: Object-Oriented and Rule-Based. Technical Report, Columbia University Department of Computer Science, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Barringer, J. Cheng, and C. Jones. A logic covering undefinedness in program proofs. Acta Informatica, 21:251–269, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Barringer, R. Kuiper, and A. Pnueli. Now you may compose temporal logic specifications. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Washington DC, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Bjørner. The stepwise development of software developments: meta-programming vdm develpoments. In D. Bjørner et al, editors, VDM '87: VDM — A Formal Method at Work, pages 77–96, 1987. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 252.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Bjørner, C. Jones, M. Mac an Airchinnigh, and E. Neuhold, editors. VDM '87: VDM — A Formal Method at Work (Proceedings of the VDM-Europe Symposium 1987, Belgium, March 1987), Springer-Verlag, 1987. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 252.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Boyer and J. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. M. Burstall and J. A. Goguen. Putting theories together to make specifications. In Fifth International Joint Conference on A.I., Boston, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Cheheyl, M. Gasser, G. Huff, and J. Millen. Verifying security. Computing Surveys, 13:279–339, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    CIP Language Group. The Munich Project CIP—Volume 1: The Wide Spectrum Language CIP-L. Volume 183 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Constable et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    I. Cottam, C. Jones, T. Nipkow, A. Wills, M. Wolczko, and A. Yaghi. Mule — An Environment for Rigorous Software Development (Final Report to SERC on Grant Number GR/C/05762). Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    I. Cottam, C. Jones, T. Nipkow, A. Wills, M. Wolczko, and A. Yaghi. Project support environments for formal methods. In J. McDermid, editor, Integrated Project Support Environments, chapter 3, Peter Peregrinus Ltd., 1985.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    D. Craigen. A Technical Review of Four Verification Systems: Gypsy, Affirm, FDM and Revised Special. Technical Report, I.P. Sharpe Associates Ltd, Ottawa, Canada, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    O. J. Dahl. Can program proving be made practical? In EEC-Crest Course on Programming Foundations, Toulouse, 1977. revised May 1978.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    B. Denvir, V. Downes, C. Jones, R. Snowdon, and M. Tordoff. IPSE 2.5 Project Proposal, February 1985.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Good. Mechanical proofs about computer programs. In C. Hoare and J. Shepherdson, editors, Mathematical Logic and Programming Languages, pages 55–75, Prentice-Hall International, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Good. Reusable problem domain theories. Technical Report 31, ICSCA, University of Texas at Austin, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Gordon, R. Milner, and C. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF. Volume 78 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    F. Hanna and N. Daeche. Purely functional implementation of a logic. In Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 598–607, 1986. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 230.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. Harper, F. Honsell, and G. Plotkin. A framework for defining logics. In Proceedings of Second Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 194–204, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. Hoare. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 12:576–583, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    C. Jones. Constructing a theory of a data structure as an aid to program development. Acta Informatica, 11:119–137, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    C. Jones. Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice-Hall International, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    C. Jones. VDM proof obligations and their justification. In D. Bjørner et al, editors, VDM '87: VDM — A Formal Method at Work, pages 260–286, 1987. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 252.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    C. Jones. The Vienna Development Method: examples of compiler development. In M. Amirchahy and D. Neel, editors, Le Point sur la Compilation, pages 89–114, IRIA-SEFI, 1979.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    C. Jones and R. Moore. Muffin: a user interface design experiment for a theorem proving assistant. In VDM-The Way Ahead, 1988. This volume.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    K. Jones. Support environments for VDM. In D. Bjørner et al, editor, VDM '87: VDM — A Formal Method at Work, 1987. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 252.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    K. D. Jones. The muffin prototype: experiences with smalltalk-80. Ipse Document 060/00066/1.1, August 1987.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    S. Kleene. Introduction to Metamathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., 1967.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R. Kneuper. Animation of specifications: a survey. Ipse Document 060/00069/1.2, December 1987.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    R. Kneuper. Symbolic Execution of Specifications: UI and Scenarios. Technical Report UMCS 87-12-6, University of Manchester Computer Science Department, 1987.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    J. Latham. Abstract Pascal User and Reference Manual. 1985.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    P. Lindsay. A survey of mechanical support for formal reasoning. Software Engineering Journal, 3(1):3–27, January 1988.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    P. Lindsay. Theory structuring for reuse. In Proceedings of the Leeds Workshop on Logic Teaching Systems, July 1987. to appear.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    P.A. Lindsay. A formal system with inclusion polymorphism. Ipse working document 060/pal014/2.3, December 1987.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    P. A. Lindsay. Logical Frames for Interactive Theorem Proving. Technical Report UMCS 87-12-7, University of Manchester Computer Science Department, 1987.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    D. Loveland. Automated theorem-proving: a quarter century review. In Automated Theorem Proving: After 25 Years, pages 1–45, American Mathematical Society, 1984. AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series Volume 29.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Z. Manna and R. Waldinger. A deductive approach to program synthesis. ACM TOPLAS, 2:90–121, 1980.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    R. Moore. The bumper fripse spec. Ipse Document 060/00143/2.1, June 1988.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    F. Morris. Some low-level suggestions for expression representation. To appear as a University of Manchester technical report, 1988.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    T. Nipkow. Behavioural Implementation Concepts for Nondeterministic Data Types. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, May 1987.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    L. Paulson. Natural deduction proof as higher-order resolution. Journal of Logic Programming, 237–258, 1986.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    D. Prawitz. Natural Deduction. Almqvist and Wiskell, 1965.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    B. Ritchie. The Design and Implementation of an Interactive Proof Editor. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1988.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    B. Ritchie and J. C. Bicarregui. Theory store analysis. Ipse Document 060/00111/1.1, October 1987.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    B. Ritchie and J. C. Bicarregui. Theory store requirements study. Ipse Document 060/00063/1.4, October 1987.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    R. Snowdon. Scope of the IPSE 2.5 Project. IPSE Project Document 060/00002/4.1.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    V. Stavridou, H. Barringer, and D. Edwards. Formal Specification and Verification of Hardware: A Comparative Case Study. Technical Report UMCS 87-11-1, University of Manchester Computer Science Department, 1987.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    D. Talbot and R. Witty. Alvey programme for software engineering. November 1983. Published by the Alvey Directorate.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    T. Teitelbaum and T. Reps. CPS: a syntax-directed programming environment. Communications of ACM, 24:563–573, 1981.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    A. Wills. Structure of interactive environments. In Software Engineering Environments, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Software Engineering Environments, April 1987, pages 174–188, Ellis Horwood, 1988.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    A. C. Wills. Fripse architectural requirements. Ipse Document 060/00113/2.1, January 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. B. Jones
  • P. A. Lindsay

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations