Reflecting the Open-Ended Computation System of Constructive Type Theory

  • Robert L. Constable
  • Stuart F. Allen
  • Douglas J. Howe
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 79)

Abstract

The computation system of constructive type theory is open-ended so that theorems about computation will hold for a broad class of extensions to the system. We show that despite this openness it is possible to completely reflect the computation system into the language in a clear way by adding simple primitive concepts that anticipate the reflection. This work provides a hook for developing methods to modify the built-in evaluator and to treat the issues of intensionality and computational complexity in programming logics and provides a basis for reflecting the deductive apparatus of type theory.

Keywords

Programming Logic Type Theory Computation System Outer Operator Term Spread 
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]
    S. F. Allen. A non-type-theoretic semantics for type-theoretic language. PhD thesis, Cornell University, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. F. Allen, R. L. Constable, D. J. Howe, and W. E. Aitken. The Semantics of Reflected Proof. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 95–107, June 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. L. Constable, S. Allen, H. Bromely, W. Cleaveland, and et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Development System. NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Davis and J. Schwartz. Metamathematical extensibility for theorem verifiers and proof checkers. In Comp. Math. with Applications, v. 5, pages 217–230, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Howe. Computational metetheory in nuprl. CADE-9, 230:404–415, 1988.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Howe. Automating Reasoning in an Implementation of Constructive Type Theory. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Martin-Lof. An intuitionistic theory of types: predicative part. In Logic Colloquium’73., pages 73–118. Amsterdam:North-Holland, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Martin-Lof. Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In Sixth International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, pages 153–75. Amsterdam:North Holland, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Mendier. Inductive Definition in Type Theory. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    N. Shanker. Towrds mechanical metamathematics. Technical report, Institute for Computing Science, University of Texas at Austin, 1984. Tech. report 43.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. C. Smith. Reflection and semantics in lisp. Conference Record of the Eleventh Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 23–35, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Smith. Partial Objects in Type Theory. PhD thesis, Cornell University, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. Weyhrauch. Prolegomena to a theory of formal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:133–170, 1980.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Constable
    • 1
  • Stuart F. Allen
    • 1
  • Douglas J. Howe
    • 1
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations