Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:52:00.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A pluralist approach to the formalisation of mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2011

ROBIN ADAMS  and
ZHAOHUI LUO
ROBIN ADAMS
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom Email: robin@cs.rhul.ac.uk, zhaohui@cs.rhul.ac.uk
ZHAOHUI LUO
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom Email: robin@cs.rhul.ac.uk, zhaohui@cs.rhul.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a programme of research for pluralist formalisations, that is, formalisations that involve proving results in more than one foundation.

A foundation consists of two parts: a logical part, which provides a notion of inference, and a non-logical part, which provides the entities to be reasoned about. An LTT is a formal system composed of two such separate parts. We show how LTTs may be used as the basis for a pluralist formalisation.

We show how different foundations may be formalised as LTTs, and also describe a new method for proof reuse. If we know that a translation Φ exists between two logic-enriched type theories (LTTs) S and T, and we have formalised a proof of a theorem α in S, we may wish to make use of the fact that Φ(α) is a theorem of T. We show how this is sometimes possible by writing a proof script MΦ. For any proof script Mα that proves a theorem α in S, if we change Mα so it first imports MΦ, the resulting proof script will still parse, and will be a proof of Φ(α) in T.

In this paper, we focus on the logical part of an LTT-framework and show how the above method of proof reuse is done for four cases of Φ: inclusion, the double negation translation, the A-translation and the Russell–Prawitz modality. This work has been carried out using the proof assistant Plastic.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 21 , Special Issue 4: Interactive Theorem Proving and the Formalisation of Mathematics , August 2011 , pp. 913 - 942
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aczel, P. (2001) The Russell-Prawitz modality. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 11 (4)541–554.Google Scholar
Aczel, P. and Gambino, N. (2002) Collection principles in dependent type theory. In: Luo, Z., McKinna, J. and Pollack, R. (eds.) Types for Proofs and Programs. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 22771–23.Google Scholar
Adams, R. and Luo, Z. (2007) Weyl's predicative classical mathematics as a logic-enriched type theory. In: Altenkirch, T. and McBride, C. (eds.) Types for Proofs and Programs. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 45021–17.Google Scholar
Adams, R. and Luo, Z. (2010) Weyl's predicative classical mathematics as a logic-enriched type theory. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 11 (2)1–29.Google Scholar
Agda (2008) The Agda proof assistant. (Available at http://appserv.cs.chalmers.se/users/ulfn/wiki/agda.php.)Google Scholar
Beckert, B. and Klebanov, V. (2004) Proof reuse for deductive program verification. In: Proceedings of the Software Engineering and Formal Methods, Second International Conference (SEFM '04), IEEE Computer Society 77–86.Google Scholar
Bertot, Y. and Castéran, P. (2004) Interactive theorem proving and program development: Coq'Art: the calculus of inductive constructions, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Boite, O. (2004) Proof reuse with extended inductive types. In: Slind, K., Bunker, A. and Gopalakrishnan, G. (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 322350–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaghan, P. C. and Luo, Z. (2001) An implementation of typed LF with coercive subtyping and universes. Journal of Automated Reasoning 27 (1)3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constable, R. et al. . (1986) Implementing Mathematics with the NuPRL Proof Development System, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Coq (2004) The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual (Version 8.0), INRIA, The Coq Development Team.Google Scholar
Coquand, T. and Huet, G. (1988) The calculus of constructions. Information and Computation 76 (2–3)95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coquard, T. and Paulin-Mohring, C. (1990) Inductively defined types. In: Martin-Löf, P. and Mints, G. (eds.) International Conference in Computer Logic (COLOG-88). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 41750–66.Google Scholar
Dybjer, P. (1991) Inductive sets and families in Martin-Löf'ss type theory and their set-theoretic semantics. In: Huet, G. and Plotkin, G. (eds.) Logical Frameworks, Cambridge University Press 280–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, W., Guttman, J. and Thayer, F. (1990) IMPS: An interactive mathematical proof system. In: Stickel, M. (ed.) 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 449653–654.Google Scholar
Farmer, W. M. (2000) An infrastructure for intertheory reasoning. In: McAllester, D. (ed.) Automated Deduction – CADE-17. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1831115–131.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (2005) Predicativity. In: Shapiro, S. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
François Garillot, F., Gonthier, G., Mahboubi, A. and Rideau, L. (2009) Packaging Mathematical Structures. In: Nipkow, T. and Urban, C. (eds.) Proceedings Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5674327–342.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1978) Classically and intuitionistically provable functions. In: Higher Set Theory 21–28.Google Scholar
Gambino, N. and Aczel, P. (2006) The generalised type-theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 71 (1)67–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1986) The system F of variable types, fifteen years later. Theoretical Computer Science 45 (2)159–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y. and Taylor, P. (1990) Proofs and Types, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1933) On intuitionistic arithmetic and number theory. Collected Works 287–295.Google Scholar
Goguen, H. (1994) A Typed Operational Semantics for Type Theory, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goguen, J. and Burstall, R. (1984) Introducing institutions. In: Clarke, E. and Kozen, D. (eds.) Logics of Programs Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 164221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, P. and Pudlák, P. (1998) Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic 3, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Harper, R., Honsell, F. and Plotkin, G. (1987) A framework for defining logics. Proc. 2nd Ann. Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE.Google Scholar
Harper, R., Honsell, F. and Plotkin, G. (1993) A framework for defining logics. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 40 (1)143–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. (1996) HOL Light: A tutorial introduction. In: Srivas, M. and Camilleri, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD'96). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1166265–269.Google Scholar
Howe, D. J. (1996) Importing mathematics from HOL into Nuprl. In: von Wright, J., Grundy, J. and Harrison, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics (TPHOL '96). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1125141–156.Google Scholar
Howe, D. J. (1998) Toward sharing libraries of mathematics between theorem provers. In: Proceedings Frontiers of Combining Systems, FroCoS'98, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Iancu, M. and Rabe, F. (2011) Formalising foundations of mathematics. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlenbach, U. (2005) Higher order reverse mathematics. In: Simpson, S. (ed.) Reverse mathematics 2001, Lecture Notes in Logic 21, Association for Symbolic Logic 281–295.Google Scholar
Luo, Z. (1994) Computation and Reasoning: A Type Theory for Computer Science, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Z. (2003) PAL+: a lambda-free logical framework. Journal of Functional Programming 13 (2)317–338.Google Scholar
Luo, Z. (2006) A type-theoretic framework for formal reasoning with different logical foundations. In: Okada, M. and Satoh, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Annual Asian Computing Science Conference. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4435214–222.Google Scholar
Luo, Z. and Pollack, R. (1992) LEGO Proof Development System: User's Manual. LFCS Report ECS-LFCS-92-211, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Martin-Löf, P. (1984) Intuitionistic Type Theory, Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Muzalewski, M. (1993) An Outline of PC Mizar. Fondation Philippe le Hodey, Brussels.Google Scholar
Nipkow, T., Paulson, L. C. and Wenzel, M. (2002) Isabelle/HOL: a proof assistant for higher-order logic. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2283.Google Scholar
Nordström, B., Petersson, K. and Smith, J. (1990) Programming in Martin-Löf'ss Type Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paulson, L. C. (1994) Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 828.Google Scholar
Pfenning, F. and Schürmann, C. (1999) Twelf – a meta-logical framework for deductive systems. In: Ganzinger, H. (ed.) Automated Deduction – CADE-16. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1632 202–206.Google Scholar
Pollack, R. (1994) The Theory of LEGO: A Proof Checker for the Extended Calculus of Constructions, Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1903) The Principles of Mathematics, Routledge.Google Scholar
Schürmann, C. and Stehr, M.-O. (2006) An executable formalization of the HOL/Nuprl connection in the metalogical framework Twelf. In: Hermann, M. and Voronkov, A. (eds.) 11th International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4246150–166.Google Scholar
Schütte, K. (1965) Predicative well-orderings. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 40 280–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoenfield, J. (1967) Mathematical logic, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (1999) Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (1988) The independence of Peano's fourth axiom from Martin-Löf'ss type theory without universes. Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (3).Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1918) Das Kontinuum. (English translation – The Continuum: a critical examination of the foundation of analysis, Dover 1994.)Google Scholar