Advertisement

An Isabelle-Like Procedural Mode for HOL Light

  • Petros Papapanagiotou
  • Jacques Fleuriot
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6397)

Abstract

HOL Light is a modern theorem proving system characterised by its powerful, low level interface that allows for flexibility and programmability. However, considerable effort is required to become accustomed to the system and to reach a point where one can comfortably achieve simple natural deduction proofs. Isabelle is another powerful and widely used theorem prover that provides useful features for natural deduction proofs, including its meta-logic and its four main natural deduction tactics. In this paper we describe our efforts to emulate some of these features of Isabelle in HOL Light. One of our aims is to decrease the learning curve of HOL Light and make it more accessible and usable by a range of users, while preserving its programmability.

Keywords

Inference Rule Natural Deduction Proof Assistant Elimination Rule Major Premise 
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.
    McLaughlin, S., Harrison, J.: A proof-producing decision procedure for real arithmetic. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) CADE 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3632, pp. 295–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loveland, D.: Mechanical Theorem-Proving by Model Elimination. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 15, 236–251 (1968)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulson, L.: Logic and computation: interactive proof with Cambridge LCF. Cambridge Univ. Pr., Cambridge (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prawitz, D.: Natural deduction: A proof-theoretical study. Almqvist & Wiksell Stockholm (1965)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrison, J.: HOL Light: A tutorial introduction. In: Srivas, M., Camilleri, A. (eds.) FMCAD 1996. LNCS, vol. 1166, pp. 265–269. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrison, J.: Optimizing proof search in model elimination. In: McRobbie, M.A., Slaney, J.K. (eds.) CADE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1104, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrison, J.: HOL Light: future wishes. In: Talk at Workshop on Interactive Theorem Proving, Cambridge (2009), http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/slides/itp-25aug09/slides.pdf
  8. 8.
    Paulson, L.: Isabelle.: Generic Theorem Prover. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paulson, L.: A generic tableau prover and its integration with Isabelle. J. UCS 5, 73–87 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL: a proof assistant for higher-order logic. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delahaye, D.: A tactic language for the system Coq. In: Parigot, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1955, pp. 377–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petros Papapanagiotou
    • 1
  • Jacques Fleuriot
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Informatics, Informatics ForumUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations