Automating Change of Representation for Proofs in Discrete Mathematics

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9150)


Representation determines how we can reason about a specific problem. Sometimes one representation helps us find a proof more easily than others. Most current automated reasoning tools focus on reasoning within one representation. There is, therefore, a need for the development of better tools to mechanise and automate formal and logically sound changes of representation.

In this paper we look at examples of representational transformations in discrete mathematics, and show how we have used Isabelle’s Transfer tool to automate the use of these transformations in proofs. We give a brief overview of a general theory of transformations that we consider appropriate for thinking about the matter, and we explain how it relates to the Transfer package. We show our progress towards developing a general tactic that incorporates the automatic search for representation within the proving process.


Change of representation Transformation Automated reasoning Isabelle proof assistant 


  1. 1.
    Blanchette, J.C., Nipkow, T.: Nitpick: a counterexample generator for higher-order logic based on a relational model finder. In: Kaufmann, M., Paulson, L.C. (eds.) ITP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6172, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchberger, B., Winkler, F.: Gröbner Bases and Applications, vol. 251. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farmer, W.M., Guttman, J.D., Thayer, F.J.: Little theories. In: Kapur, D. (ed.) CADE 1992. LNCS, vol. 607, pp. 567–581. Springer, Heidelberg (1992) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farmer, W.M., Guttman, J.D., Thayer, F.J.: IMPS: an interactive mathematical proof system. J. Autom. Reason. 9(11), 213–248 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: abstract model theory for specification and programming. J. ACM (JACM) 39(1), 95–146 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huffman, B., Kunčar, O.: Lifting and transfer: a modular design for quotients in Isabelle/HOL. In: Gonthier, G., Norrish, M. (eds.) CPP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8307, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurd, J.: System description: the Metis proof tactic. In: ESHOC, pp. 103–104 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mossakowski, T., Maeder, C., Lüttich, K.: The heterogeneous tool set, Hets. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 519–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulson, L.C., Blanchette, J.C.: Three years of experience with sledgehammer, a practical link between automatic and interactive theorem provers. Practical Aspects of Automated Reasoning (PAAR), 5th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR) (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber, T.: SMT solvers: new oracles for the HOL theorem prover. Int. J. Softw. Tools Tech. Transf. 13(5), 419–429 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland
  2. 2.School of Mathematical and Computer SciencesHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghScotland
  3. 3.School of ComputingUniversity of DundeeDundeeScotland

Personalised recommendations