CICM 2014: Intelligent Computer Mathematics pp 236-251 | Cite as
Set Theory or Higher Order Logic to Represent Auction Concepts in Isabelle?
Abstract
When faced with the question of how to represent properties in a formal proof system any user has to make design decisions. We have proved three of the theorems from Maskin’s 2004 survey article on Auction Theory using the Isabelle/HOL system, and we have verified software code that implements combinatorial Vickrey auctions. A fundamental question in this was how to represent some basic concepts: since set theory is available inside Isabelle/HOL, when introducing new definitions there is often the issue of balancing the amount of set-theoretical objects and of objects expressed using entities which are more typical of higher order logic such as functions or lists. Likewise, a user has often to answer the question whether to use a constructive or a non-constructive definition. Such decisions have consequences for the proof development and the usability of the formalization. For instance, sets are usually closer to the representation that economists would use and recognize, while the other objects are closer to the extraction of computational content. We have studied the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches, and their relationship, in the concrete application setting of auction theory. In addition, we present the corresponding Isabelle library of definitions and theorems, most prominently those dealing with relations and quotients.
Keywords
Equivalence Relation Auction Theory Vickrey Auction Make Design Decision Pattern CataloguePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Bergman, C.: Universal Algebra: Fundamentals and Selected Topics. Chapman & Hall Pure and Applied Mathematics. Taylor & Francis (2011)Google Scholar
- 2.Blanchette, J.C., Paulson, L.C.: Hammering Away. A User’s Guide to Sledgehammer for Isabelle/HOL (December 5, 2013), http://isabelle.in.tum.de/dist/Isabelle2013-2/doc/sledgehammer.pdf
- 3.Bowen, J., Gordon, M.: Z and HOL. In: Z User Workshop, Cambridge 1994, pp. 141–167. Springer (1994)Google Scholar
- 4.Caminati, M.B., et al.: Proving soundness of combinatorial Vickrey auctions and generating verified executable code, arXiv:1308.1779 [cs.GT] (2013)Google Scholar
- 5.Haftmann, F., Nipkow, T.: Code generation via higher-order rewrite systems. In: Blume, M., Kobayashi, N., Vidal, G. (eds.) FLOPS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6009, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Klein, G., et al. (eds.): Archive of Formal Proofs (2014), http://afp.sf.net/ (visited on March 14, 2014)
- 7.Lange, C., Caminati, M.B., Kerber, M., Mossakowski, T., Rowat, C., Wenzel, M., Windsteiger, W.: A qualitative comparison of the suitability of four theorem provers for basic auction theory. In: Carette, J., Aspinall, D., Lange, C., Sojka, P., Windsteiger, W. (eds.) CICM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7961, pp. 200–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lange, C., Rowat, C., Kerber, M.: The ForMaRE Project – Formal Mathematical Reasoning in Economics. In: Carette, J., Aspinall, D., Lange, C., Sojka, P., Windsteiger, W. (eds.) CICM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7961, pp. 330–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2013), arXiv:1303.4194[cs.CE]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Leinster, T.: Rethinking set theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.6543 (2012)Google Scholar
- 10.Maskin, E.: The unity of auction theory: Milgrom’s master class. Journal of Economic Literature 42(4), 1102–1115 (2004), http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/unity_of_auction_theory.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C.: Proof pearl: Defining functions over finite sets. In: Hurd, J., Melham, T. (eds.) TPHOLs 2005. LNCS, vol. 3603, pp. 385–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Paulson, L.C.: Defining functions on equivalence classes. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL) 7(4), 658–675 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Paulson, L.C.: Set Theory for Verification: I. From Foundations to Functions. Journal of Automated Reasoning 11, 353–389 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Paulson, L.C., et al.: Isabelle/HOL. A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic (2013)Google Scholar
- 15.Simpson, S.G.: Subsystems of second order arithmetic, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
- 16.Valentine, S.H., et al.: AZ Patterns Catalogue II-definitions and laws, v0.1 (2004)Google Scholar