Advertisement

A Semi-reflexive Tactic for (Sub-)Equational Reasoning

  • Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3839)

Abstract

We propose a simple theory of monotone functions that is the basis for the implementation of a tactic that generalises one step conditional rewriting by “propagating” constraints of the form x R y where the relation R can be weaker than an equivalence relation. The constraints can be propagated only in goals whose conclusion is a syntactic composition of n-ary functions that are monotone in each argument. The tactic has been implemented in the Coq system as a semi-reflexive tactic, which represents a novelty and an improvement over an earlier similar development for NuPRL.

A few interesting applications of the tactic are: reasoning in type theory about equivalence classes (by performing rewriting in well-defined goals); reasoning about reductions and properties preserved by reductions; reasoning about partial functions over equivalence classes (by performing rewriting in PERs); propagating inequalities by replacing a term with a smaller (greater) one in a given monotone context.

Keywords

Monotone Function Natural Deduction Sequent Calculus Applicative Context Proof Search 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barthe, G., Pons, O., Capretta, V.: Setoids in type theory. Journal of Functional Programming 13(2), 261–293 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basin, D.: Generalized Rewriting in Type Theory. Journal of Information Processing and Cybernetics 30(5/6), 249–259 (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Courtieu, P.: Normalized Types. In: Fribourg, L. (ed.) CSL 2001 and EACSL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 554–569. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lüth, C., Wolff, B.: TAS — A Generic Window Inference System. In: Aagaard, M.D., Harrison, J. (eds.) TPHOLs 2000. LNCS, vol. 1869, pp. 405–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grégoire, B.: Compilation de termes de preuves: un (nouveau) mariage entre Coq et OCaml. PhD thesis. Université Paris 7 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grundy, J.: Transformational hierarchical reasoning. The Computer Journal 39(4), 291–302 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hofmann, M.: Extensional concepts in intensional type theory. PhD thesis. LFCS Edinburgh (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kreitz, C.: The NuPRL 5 Manual, pp. 135–145Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Renard, C.: Memoire de DEA: Un peu d’extensionnalité en Coq. INRIA Rocquencourt (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robinson, P.J., Staples, J.: Formalizing a hierarchical structure of practical mathematical reasoning. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 47–61 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Staples, M.: Window Inference in Isabelle. In: Proceedings of the Isabelle Users Workshop, Cambridge, UK, September 18-19 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
    • 1
  1. 1.Project PCRI, CNRS, École Polytechnique, INRIAUniversité Paris-Sud 

Personalised recommendations