Merging Procedural and Declarative Proof

  • Cezary Kaliszyk
  • Freek Wiedijk
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5497)


There are two different styles for writing natural deduction proofs: the ‘Gentzen’ style in which a proof is a tree with the conclusion at the root and the assumptions at the leaves, and the ‘Fitch’ style (also called ‘flag’ style) in which a proof consists of lines that are grouped together in nested boxes.

In the world of proof assistants these two kinds of natural deduction correspond to procedural proofs (tactic scripts that work on one or more subgoals, like those of the Coq, HOL and PVS systems), and declarative proofs (like those of the Mizar and Isabelle/Isar languages).

In this paper we give an algorithm for converting tree style proofs to flag style proofs. We then present a rewrite system that simplifies the results.

This algorithm can be used to convert arbitrary procedural proofs to declarative proofs. It does not work on the level of the proof terms (the basic inferences of the system), but on the level of the statements that the user sees in the goals when constructing the proof.

The algorithm from this paper has been implemented in the ProofWeb interface to Coq. In ProofWeb a proof that is given as a Coq proof script (even with arbitrary Coq tactics) can be displayed both as a tree style and as a flag style proof.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Asperti, A., Padovani, L., Sacerdoti Coen, C., Guidi, F., Schena, I.: Mathematical Knowledge Management in HELM. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Mathematical Knowledge Management 38, 1–3 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asperti, A., Wegner, B.: MOWGLI – A New Approach for the Content Description in Digital Documents. In: Proceedings of the Nineth International Conference on Electronic Resources and the Social Role of Libraries in the Future, vol. 1 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geuvers, H., Loeb, I.: From Deduction Graphs to Proof Nets: Boxes and Sharing in the Graphical Presentation of Deductions. In: Královič, R., Urzyczyn, P. (eds.) MFCS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4162, pp. 39–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geuvers, H., Nederpelt, R.: Rewriting for Fitch Style Natural Deductions. In: van Oostrom, V. (ed.) RTA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 134–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Girard, J.Y.: Linear Logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50, 1–102 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guilhot, F., Naciri, H., Pottier, L.: Proof explanations: using natural language and graph view, Slides for a talk at a MoWGLI presentation (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrison, J.R.: Proof Style. In: Giménez, E., Paulin-Möhring, C. (eds.) TYPES 1996. LNCS, vol. 1512, pp. 154–172. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huth, M., Ryan, M.: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaliszyk, C., van Raamsdonk, F., Wiedijk, F., Wupper, H., Hendriks, M., de Vrijer, R.: Deduction using the ProofWeb system. Technical Report ICIS–R08016, Radboud University Nijmegen (September 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cezary Kaliszyk
    • 1
  • Freek Wiedijk
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud University NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations