Optimized encodings of fragments of type theory in first order logic

  • Tanel Tammet
  • Jan M. Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1158)


The paper presents sound and complete translations of several fragments of Martin-Löf's monomorphic type theory to first order predicate calculus. The translations are optimised for the purpose of automated theorem proving in the mentioned fragments. The implementation of the theorem prover Gandalf and several experimental results are described.


Type Theory Intuitionistic Logic Horn Clause Derivation Rule Goal Type 
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.
    Peter Aczel. The strength of Martin-Löf's type theory with one universe. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Mathematical Logic, Oulu, 1974, pages 1–32. Report No 2, Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Augustsson, T. Coquand, and B. Nordström. A short description of Another Logical Framework. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Logical Frameworks, Antibes, pages 39–42, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Barendregt. The Lambda Calculus. North Holland, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T.Tammet C.Fermüller, A.Leitsch and N.Zamov. Resolution Methods for the Decision Problem, volume 679 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.Green. Application of theorem-proving to problem solving. In Proc. 1st Internat. Joint. Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pages 219–239, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.L.Chang and R.C.T Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thierry Coquand. Pattern matching with dependent types. In Proceeding from the logical framework workshop at Båstad, June 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thierry Coquand, Bengt Nordström, Jan M. Smith, and Björn von Sydow. Type theory and programming. EATCS, 52, February 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Felty and D. Miller. Encoding a Dependent-type λ-Calculus in a Logic Programming Language. In Proceedings of CADE-10. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 449, Springer Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G.Peterson. A technique for establishing completeness results in theorem proving with equality. SIAM J. of Comput, 12:82–100, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lena Magnusson. The new Implementation of ALF. In The informal proceeding from the logical framework workshop at Båstad, June 1992, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Miller. Proofs in Higher Order Logics. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Miller. A compact representation of proofs. Studia Logica, 46(4), 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Mints. Gentzen-type systems and resolution rules. part i. propositional logic. In COLOG-88, volume 417 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 198–231. Springer Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Mints. Resolution strategies for the intuitionistic logic. In Constraint Programming, volume 131 of NATO ASI Series F, pages 289–311. Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bengt Nordström, Kent Petersson, and Jan M. Smith. Programming in Martin-Löf's Type Theory. An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jan Smith. An interpretation of Martin-Löf's type theory in a type-free theory of propositions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49(3):730–753, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanel Tammet
    • 1
  • Jan M. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceChalmers University of Technology and Univ. of GöteborgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations