Set theory, higher order logic or both?

  • Mike Gordon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1125)


The majority of general purpose mechanised proof assistants support versions of typed higher order logic, even though set theory is the standard foundation for mathematics. For many applications higher order logic works well and provides, for specification, the benefits of type-checking that are well-known in programming. However, there are areas where types get in the way or seem unmotivated. Furthermore, most people with a scientific or engineering background already know set theory, but not higher order logic. This paper discusses some approaches to getting the best of both worlds: the expressiveness and standardness of set theory with the efficient treatment of functions provided by typed higher order logic.


Type Versus Type Theory Inaccessible Cardinal Simple Type Theory Standard Foundation 
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.
    S. Agerholm. Formalising a model of the λ-calculus in HOL-ST. Technical Report 354, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Agerholm and M.J.C. Gordon. Experiments with ZF Set Theory in HOL and Isabelle. In E. T. Schubert, P. J. Windley, and J. Alves-Foss, editors, Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Its Applications: 8th International Workshop, volume 971 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 32–45. Springer-Verlag, September 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jackson Paul B. Exploring abstract algebra in constructive type theory. In A. Bundy, editor, 12th Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence. Springer, June 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. J. Boulton, A. D. Gordon, M. J. C. Gordon, J. R. Harrison, J. M. J. Herbert, and J. Van Tassel. Experience with embedding hardware description languages in HOL. In V. Stavridou, T. F. Melham, and R. T. Boute, editors, Theorem Provers in Circuit Design: Theory, Practice and Experience: Proceedings of the IFIP TC10/WG 10.2 International Conference, IFIP Transactions A-10, pages 129–156. North-Holland, June 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5:56–68, 1940.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. L. Constable et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thierry Coquand. An analysis of Girard's paradox. In Proceedings, Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 227–236, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 16–18 June 1986. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Francisco Corella. Mechanizing set theory. Technical Report 232, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, August 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Dowek, A. Felty, H. Herbelin, G. Huet, C. Murthy, C. Parent, C. Paulin-Mohring, and B. Werner. The Coq proof assistant user's guide — version 5.8. Technical Report 154, INRIA-Rocquencourt, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. M. Farmer, J. D. Guttman, and F. Javier Thayer. IMPS: An interactive mathematical proof system. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11(2):213–248, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Finn and M. P. Fourman. L2 — The LAMBDA Logic. Abstract Hardware Limited, September 1993. In LAMBDA 4.3 Reference Manuals.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. J. C. Gordon. Merging HOL with set theory. Technical Report 353, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, November 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. J. C. Gordon and T. F. Melham, editors. Introduction to HOL: A Theorem-proving Environment for Higher-Order Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. K. Hanna, N. Daeche, and M. Longley. Veritas+: a specification language based on type theory. In M. Leeser and G. Brown, editors, Hardware specification, verification and synthesis: mathematical aspects, volume 408 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 358–379. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. B. Jones. Systematic Software Development using VDM. Prentice Hall International, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Lamport and S. Merz. Specifying and verifying fault-tolerant systems. In Proceedings of FTRTFT'94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1994. See also: Scholar
  17. 17.
    Z. Luo and R. Pollack. LEGO proof development system: User's manual. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-92-211, University of Edinburgh, LFCS, Computer Science Department, University of Edinburgh, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, May 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Magnusson and B. Nordström. The ALF proof editor and its proof engine. In Types for Proofs and Programs: International Workshop TYPES’ 93, pages 213–237. Springer, published 1994. LNCS 806.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. M. Melliar-Smith and John Rushby. The enhanced HDM system for specification and verification. In Proc. Verkshop III, volume 10 of ACM Software Engineering Notes, pages 41–43. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. P. Nederpelt, J. H. Geuvers, and R. C. De Vrijer, editors. Selected Papers on Automath, volume 133 of Studies in Logic and The Foundations of Mathematics. North Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. C. Paulson. Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover, volume 828 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    PVS Web page. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Piotr Rudnicki. An Overview of the MIZAR Project. Unpublished manuscript; but available by anonymous FTP from in the directory pub/Mizar/Mizar_Over.tar.Z, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 2nd edition, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Cambridge Computer LaboratoryCambridgeU.K.

Personalised recommendations