GLEFATINF:A graphic framework for combining theorem provers and editing proofs for different logics
A running system for combining theorem provers, editing and checking proofs in different logics is presented. It is based on a formalism similar to and developed from the Calculus of Constructions (Coquand and Huet).
Its abilities are independent of the logic and the calculus used. It is therefore possible to present and combine proofs coming from any theorem prover. The user may define the full graphic presentation of proofs, formulas,... he wishes.
Some other original features are: proofs can be viewed and browsed in different ways, (parts of) proofs can be memorized and reused, the size of inference steps for proof presentation can be fixed arbitrarily, symmetries can be handled in a natural manner, equational and non equational proofs are treated in an homogeneous way,...
The principles of the underlying formalism and the several languages used are given. The system has been implemented on Macintosh (and will soon be transported on SUN workstations).
The system should also allow an easy integration of theorem provers with symbolic computation systems.
Several running examples in classical and non-classical logics show evidence of the capabilities of the system. In particular, we present an OTTER [McC90] proof in which we handle symmetries in the proved theorem. Finally, the main lines of current and future work are given.
KeywordsGraphic Proof Presentation Proof Edition Logical Frameworks
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [BC87] T. Boy de la Tour, R. Caferra: Proof analogy in interactive theorem proving: a method to use and express it via second order pattern matching, Proc. AAAI-87, Morgan & Kaufmann 1987, pp. 95–99.Google Scholar
- [CH93] R. Caferra, M. Herment: GLEFATINF A graphic framework for combining provers and editing proofs for different logics, (long version). In preparation.Google Scholar
- [CHZ91] R. Caferra, M. Herment, N. Zabel: User-oriented theorem proving with the ATINF graphic proof editor, Proc. FAIR'91, LNAI 535, Springer-Verlag 1991, pp. 2–10.Google Scholar
- [CZ92] E. Clarke, X. Zhao: Analytica-An experiment in combinig theorem proving and symbolic computation, RR CMU-CS-92-117, September 1992.Google Scholar
- [Dyb82] P. Dybjer: Mathematical proofs in natural language, Report 5, Programming Methodology Group, University of Goteborg, April 1982.Google Scholar
- [HHP89] R. Harper, F. Honsell, G. Plotkin: A framework for defining logics, RR CMU-CS-89-173, Carnegie Mellon University, January 1989.Google Scholar
- [Hua90] X. Huang: Reference choices in mathematical proofs, Proc. ECAI'90, Pitman 1990, pp. 720–725.Google Scholar
- [Lin90] C. Lingenfelder: Transformation and structuring of computer generated proofs, SEKI Report SR-90-26, University of Kaiserslautern 1990.Google Scholar
- [LP90] C. Lingenfelder, A. Präcklein: Presentation of proofs in equational calculus, SEKI Report SR-90-15 (SFB), University of Kaiserslautern 1990.Google Scholar
- [McC90] W.W. McCune: OTTER 2.0 users guide, Technical Report ANL-90/9, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois 1990.Google Scholar
- [Mil84] D.A. Miller: Expansion tree proofs and their conversion to natural deduction, Proc. CADE-7, LNCS 170, Springer-Verlag 1984, pp. 375–393.Google Scholar
- [Qui87] V. Quint: Une approche de l'Edition Structurée des documents, Ph.D Thesis, Université Sc. Tech. et Méd. de Grenoble (1987).Google Scholar
- [Wang93] D.M. Wang: An elimination method based on Seidenberg's theory and its applications in computational algebraic geometry In Progress in Mathematics 109, pp. 301–328, Birkhäuser, 1993.Google Scholar