Implementing number theory: An experiment with Nuprl

  • Douglas J. Howe
Constructive ATP
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 230)


We describe the results of an experiment in which the Nuprl proof development system was used in conjunction with a collection of simple proof-assisting programs to constructively prove a substantial theorem of number theory. We believe that these results indicate the promise of an approach to reasoning about computationally meaningful mathematics by which both proof construction and the results of formal reasoning are mathematically comprehensible.


Proof Obligation Proof Tree Constructive Mathematic Display Form Program Synthesis 
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]
    E. Bishop. Foundations of Constructive Analysis. McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Boyer and J S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, NY, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    N. G. deBruijn. A Survey of the Project AUTOMATH. In Essays in Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus, and Formalism, J. P. Seldin and J. R. Hindley, eds., pages 589–606. Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Constable, et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System, Prentice Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Constable, S. Johnson, and C. Eichenlaub. Introduction to the PL/CV2 Programming Logic, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 135, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Constable, T. Knoblock, and J. Bates. Writing Programs that Construct Proofs. Journal of Automated Reasoning v.1 n.3, (1985), pages 285–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    T. Coquand & G. Huet. Constructions: A Higher Order Proof System for Mechanizing Mathematics. EUROCAL 85, Linz, Austria, April 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Gordon, R. Milner, and C. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanized Logic of Computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 78, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Howe. Implementing Analysis. PhD Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1986 (expected).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Howe Reflected Term Rewriting In Type Theory. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1986 (to appear).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    T. Knoblock, R. Constable. Formalized Metareasoning in Type Theory. Technical Report TR 86-742, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Z. Manna, R. Waldinger. A Deductive Approach to Program Synthesis. ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Sys. v.2 n.1 (January 1980), pp 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Per Martin-Löf. Constructive Mathematics and Computer Programming. In Sixth International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pages 153–175.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    L. Paulson. A Higher-Order Implementation of Rewriting. Science of Computer Programming n. 3, 1983, pp 119–149.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas J. Howe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations