Advertisement

A mechanisation of computability theory in HOL

  • Vincent Zammit
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1125)

Abstract

This paper describes a mechanisation of computability theory in HOL using the Unlimited Register Machine (URM) model of computation. The URM model is first specified as a rudimentary machine language and then the notion of a computable function is derived. This is followed by an illustration of the proof of a number of basic results of computability which include various closure properties of computable functions. These are used in the implementation of a mechanism which partly automates the proof of the computability of functions and a number of functions are then proved to be computable. This work forms part of a comparative study of different theorem proving approaches and a brief discussion regarding theorem proving in HOL follows the description of the mechanisation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thorsten Altenkirch, Veronica Gaspes, Bengt Nordström, and Björn von Sydow. A User's Guide to ALF. Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, May 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Camilleri and V. Zammit. Symbolic animation as a proof tool. In T.F. Melham and J. Camilleri, editors, International Workshop on Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, volume 859 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 113–127, Malta, September 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Cornes et al. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual, Version 5.10. Rapport technique RT-0177, INRIA, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N.J. Cutland. Computability: An introduction to recursive function theory. Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Gordon. HOL a machine oriented formulation of higher order logic. Technical Report TR-68, Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University, July 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.J.C. Gordon and T.F. Melham. Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment for higher order logic. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lena Magnusson and Bengt Nordström. The ALF proof editor and its proof engine. In Henk Barendregt and Tobias Nipkow, editors, Types for Proofs and Programs, pages 213–237. Springer-Verlag LNCS 806, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T.F. Melham. Using recursive types to reason about hardware and higher order logic. In G.J. Milne, editor, International Workshop on Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, pages 27–50, Glasgow, Scotland, July 1988. IFIP WG 10.2, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.C. Paulson. Logic and computation: interactive proof with Cambridge LCF. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Rogers. Theory of recursive functions and effective computability. McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.C. Shepherdson and H.E. Sturgis. Computability of recursive functions. Technical Report 10, J. Assoc. Computing Machinery, 1967.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Sommerhalder and S.C. van Westrhenen. The theory of computability: programs, machines, effectiveness and feasibility. Addison-Wesley publishing company, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.J. Tourlakis. Computability. Reston Publishing Company, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P.J. Windley. Specifying instruction-set architectures in HOL: A primer. In T.F. Melham and J. Camilleri, editors, International Workshop on Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, volume 859 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 440–456, Malta, September 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Zammit
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of KentUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations